Talk:Francis Schaeffer

Schaeffer and the Christian Right

Note to editors: Material relating to Francis Schaeffer's book, A Christian Manifesto, and his influence on the Christian Right, has been the topic of much discussion in the past. You may wish to take a look at the archives for this talk page, and take the prior discussions into consideration when planning future edits to this article. Best regards, Lini 03:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A resource

Here's an interview with Schaeffer's son which will be of interest to contributors here on Schaeffer and the Christian Right. A quote:

JW: He was talking about real life, not just pie-in-the-sky.

FS: That’s right. And I’m hoping that my book, aside from humanizing dad, will also redeem his reputation as someone who was known for something better than simply being a leader in the Religious Right. He really was known as a thinker.

JW: Are you saying that Francis Schaeffer wouldn’t be part of the Christian Right?

FS: Yes. He has been used by people like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and others to give some respectability to points of view that really were not his. What made my dad’s heart beat fastest was talking about people’s philosophical presuppositions and how they lived. He wanted to put people’s lives back together again, people who had problems. The politicized view of him is illegitimate.

JW: But you have to admit that your father helped change the face of evangelical fundamentalism. Before then, no one was involved. Then he did Whatever Happened to the Human Race?''', which was the beginning of Christian Protestantism’s involvement in the abortion issue. Thus, evangelical opposition to abortion was really started with your father.

FS: That’s right.

JW: In fact, you and your dad spearheaded all that. You changed the face of evangelical Christianity.

FS: I talk about some of that in the book. But I can’t say that for sure.

JW: I can say it.

FS: What I can say is that there would not have been a Religious Right as it became known, including the make-up of the Republican Party, without the involvement of my dad, myself, Dr. C. Everett Koop, you and those of us who were in on all this at the very beginning. My book discusses some of the unintended consequences. My father never would have pictured a day when his work would help lay a foundation for the anti-gay, anti-homosexual campaign being carried out by people like James Dobson and others. Those were not his issues. They were not his concerns. Dad was very narrowly focused. The issues that got him, me and people like you involved were very narrowly focused. And it was Roe v. Wade and all the fallout that came from that court decision.

--Flex (talk/contribs) 22:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to archive

This talk page is currently over 40KB long (in part due to my own prior contributions). Would anyone object if we archive most of the material other than the project tags? I can take care of doing this, in about a week from now (April 15-16 2007), if there are no objections. Thanks, Lini 10:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks--Cberlet 17:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Done; archive page 2 created. --Lini 03:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Schaeffer's Daughter (in Law?)

Hi. I would like to know if Schaeffer had a daughter or a daugther in law? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.62.194.182 (talk • contribs).

Not sure, but he has a son. Have you tried Google? --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure he had one daughter, and I think 2 or 3. The book "L'Abri" by Edith Schaeffer gives this info.

-- TimNelson 12:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in setting up Banner Shell

My apologies for the mistake in the setup of the Banner Shell. And thanks to TimNelson for catching and fixing it. --Lini 23:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC) he has three daughters. Their names are Prisilla, Susan, and Deborah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.52.61 (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Frank Schaeffer

Obviously this article is about Francis, not Frank, but I think that Flex's recent excision of material about the son went too far. In the bio of Francis, it's notable that he's considered the inspiration for a work of fiction and, even more important, that there's a revealing memoir about him (Crazy for God) by his son. In addition, this passage referring to Frank seems appropriate to me:

In 2008, prompted by the controversy over remarks by the pastor of presidential candidate Barack Obama's church, he wrote: "[W]hen my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr." (Schaeffer, Frank (March 16, 2008). ""Obama's Minister Committed 'Treason' But When My Father Said the Same Thing He Was a Republican Hero"". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2008-03-17.)

Here we have someone (Frank) who knew the bio subject well, and worked closely with the bio subject in the latter's political activism, and who's offering an opinion about that aspect of the bio subject's life. I think it merits inclusion.

On the other hand, I agree with much of Flex's edit. There was a lot of material about Frank that was too detailed for the article about Francis, such as the discussion of Frank's books that didn't concern Francis.

In searching for sources on Frank's role, I found the Whitehead interiew, and then discovered that Flex had already mentioned it above. Including Frank's statements about Francis's fights with his wife and similar personal information will be tricky, but it really needs to be done. JamesMLane t c 06:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with you on the tricky personal info being incorporated. I also wouldn't object to more info re:Frank that directly relates to Francis, e.g., that he's the inspiration for one of Frank's novels and discussed in Frank's memoir. However, the quote from Frank above isn't so much about his father as about the double standard Frank sees in American politics. It's fine for Frank's article (to which I previously copied it), but it is out of place here IMHO. --Flex (talk/contribs) 03:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned the Obama flap more or less automatically, because it seemed natural to give the context of Frank's remark. Of course, you're right that the double standard isn't the subject of this article, so perhaps that part should go. What's important about the quotation for this article is that a prominent spokesperson is characterizing the bio subject's views in these striking terms: that the bio subject "denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government". This perspective on Francis Schaeffer's work isn't otherwise represented in the article, which refers only to his advocacy of civil disobedience. JamesMLane t c 06:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I'd like to see the primary sources on the "violent overthrow," however, rather than just Frank's recollections. --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I came here hoping to find some portrait of Francis Shaeffer as described by Frank in Crazy for God. Obviously, I was disappointed. 74.233.164.106 (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If you've read Crazy for God, please feel free to improve the article by adding information from that book. Remember that controversial statements should be attributed to Frank Schaeffer rather than being uncritically accepted as fact. JamesMLane t c 16:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I found this sentence: "In Crazy for God, Schaeffer's son Frank presents a portrait of his father that is far more nuanced and multi-dimensional than was suggested by his public persona." The article then speaks of the differences between Frank Schaeffer's portrayal of his father and the portrayal of others. But in what is Frank Schaeffer's portrayal "far more nuanced and multi-dimensional" rather than simply contradictory? I think we should either add more information so it makes sense--and probably split that paragraph into three about Francis Schaeffer's motivations, Frank Schaeffer's accusations, and Os Guinness's response to those accusations--or change the sentence so that it fits with the rest of the paragraph. 24.100.109.192 (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Guinness Rebuttal

If anyone is going to incorporate material from Frank Schaeffer's recent book, as suggested above, they would do well to consider also this rebuttal to Frank by Os Guinness, a highly respected evangelical writer who has extensive personal knowledge of both Francis and Frank. The article is actually of more general usefulness as well in describing what Francis was really about, in contrast to how many think of him today. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. OG, who lived with the Schaeffers and was Frank's best man, summarizes his challenge to the "scurrilous caricature" in Crazy for God thusly:

"In sum, the combination of neglect, guilt, nepotism, and spoiling was a toxic brew. Some sons of famous Christian fathers are pushed by their fathers into following in their footsteps, and they respond with a slow-burning resentment that comes to cast a shadow on their fathers' reputations. In Frank's case, he chose to steer his father's steps for his father's sake, so he is responsible rather than resentful. But he is responsible for what he now acknowledges was a horrible outcome, so he turns on his entire upbringing to excuse his role."

Other quotes:

"No one could be further from con artists, even unwitting con artists, than the Francis and Edith Schaeffer I knew, lived with, and loved."

...

"[N]o one should take Frank's allegations at face value."

...

"At a deeper level, Frank's baleful influence on his father is a textbook example of how Christian ministries and organizations can be ruined through undermining their own principles—in this case, through nepotism and family politics. We have a rash of nepotism currently afflicting evangelicalism across the board, so this point carries wider lessons. In the early 1970s, when I was considering my long-term future at the Swiss L'Abri, I remember asking John Stott and James Houston what sort of questions I should be asking. Among other things, they both made the same point: 'Watch and see whether the Schaeffers truly give authority to those who are not family members, or whether the family members are always more equal than others.'

"Frank unwittingly confirms their wisdom by openly admitting that his role was the result of 'nepotism,' and by acknowledging that 'it was our family, not the other L'Abri workers and members, who were really calling the shots.' Yet the worst example of nepotism and family politics was his own disastrous persuading of his father to enter the political fray. After the Lausanne Congress in 1974, I remember well how Francis was blackly depressed, believing he had no more to say. It was Frank, alarmed at what he saw, who then abandoned his own aspirations as an artist and became his father's 'sidekick' in order to re-charge his father with visions of political activism.

"In the process Frank overrode the established principles of how decisions were made at L'Abri. As he acknowledges, he 'goaded' Schaeffer toward the strident and increasingly gloomy last period of his life, and he himself became a brash and intemperate hothead, notorious for his slashing attacks on evangelical scholars who disagreed with him. The net effect of Frank's efforts was to sow the seeds of his own self-loathing, and also to return his father to fundamentalism and to undermine his reputation in the long term."

...

"The idea that such a man was 'crazy for God,' let alone a two-faced con man, is and will always be utterly anathema to me. I was there. I saw otherwise, and I and many of my friends have been marked for life."

--Flex (talk/contribs) 18:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Schaeffer's later years

Os Guinness and Frank Schaeffer seem to agree that Francis's later years were a dark period for him. (Though Frank S. seems to see this as a continuation of a status quo.) Could anything about this be added to the article? I'm just curious. I have read alot of Francis Schaeffer, but dont' really know much about his life beyond his writings. Robert Sacamento (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, preferably with appropriate sources. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Family Relationships Section

It has been over a year since I have commented on this article. Back then a wonderful person stepped in and served as kind of a mediator in the whole discussion. What resulted was a much better article than before. I would hope that someone would step in and do something with "The Family Relationships Section." The average reader should not have to read about the sex life of a married couple. They can read Frank's book if they want all that "juicy" stuff. I would think that Wikipedia's standards would be much higher than the very blunt words now in the article. Anyone's consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated Awinger48 (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Be bold -- take a whack at it and see what you can do to improve it. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong. Someone already tried to clean up the verbiage in that section and it just got reverted back. Why should an inexperienced wikipedia person like myself do the same thing and have the same thing happen to me? Wouldn't it be more logical to ask for assistance from a more experienced wikipedia writer/editor? Awinger48 (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick look through the history and don't see anything along these lines. You need only be neutral in your wording and coverage and make sure what you say is verifiable (preferably because you supply a reliable source with it) and not original research. The biggest difficulty here is that there are two competing viewpoints expressed in the section, and the Wikipedia can't take sides with either one of them. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The specific revert I'm speaking of was that it was first written as "sexual intercourse." Then at 16:22 23 May 2008 it was changed to "sexual relationship." Then at 17:57 23 May 2008 it was reverted back to "sexual intercourse." And on it went. And this is just over one word. I would question the whole "sexual" part being in the article at all. And it's not about opinions. It's about common decency in authorship and about the standards having to do with common decency at Wikipedia. I've said enough. If no one is interested I'll move along :-( Awinger48 (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I missed that change when it happened. I've taken another cut at it. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Sir. Awinger48 (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Confusing Sentence

The "Family Relationships" section says "In contrast to Schaeffer's own experience as a single child of a father with a third-grade education and a depressed mother, he grew up with a drive to understand reality in its complexity, including the glorious and tragic human realities." This is a rambling, wordy, puzzling sentence. How is a "drive to understand reality in its complexity" in "contrast" to his experience as a child? In fact, what is a "drive to understand reality in its complexity?" And what does the phrase "the glorious and tragic human realities" mean? Are they two separate realities? What qualifies as a "glorious reality?" I'm assuming what the article is suggesting is that the difficult circumstances of Schaeffer's childhood led to an interest in philosophy and theology. If that is correct (I don't know enough about Schaeffer's bio to be sure), it's best to just say that, as simply and clearly as possible, with an economy of words. Can someone remedy this? Thank you! Sadiemonster (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was not to merge. -- StAnselm (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Edith Schaeffer neither presents third-party coverage independent of her husband (in fact it appears to cite the exact same sources as for this article), nor demonstrates notability independent of him, and is in any case fairly short, so I am proposing that her article be merged here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Edith Schaeffer is notable in her own right. -- 202.124.72.236 (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• WP:ITSNOTABLE -- worthless as an argument. (As will be that she co-founded L'Abri‎, when that article only ever mentions her as "Francis and Edith" and that she's notable as an author without reference to how she meets WP:AUTHOR.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• And no, stringing together passing mention of her books, generally in context of discussion of her husband, does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Good grief, how is this even being proposed? The woman is a respected, well-known Christian author and has always been the heart and soul of L'Abri. Lhb1239 (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Reviews of her books in reliable sources? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Book reviews as part of vetting an author's notability is found where in WP:AUTHOR (did I miss it)?

• At #3: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  There being little indication that she meets numbers 1, 2, 4 or 5. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Edith Schaeffer quite clearly meets WP:AUTHOR #1, as any Google search will show. I find this merge proposal incomprehensible. -- 202.124.72.236 (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A handful of passing mentions, mostly in context of discussing her husband, is not "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Since her peak of popularity as an author was in the 70s and 80s -- before the internet -- it's highly unlikely that there will be internet sources listing the reviews of her books during that time period. Regardless, she does meet #1 in the listed criteria. And, again, unless I've missed it -- WP:AUTHOR doesn't say that all points of listed criteria must be fulfilled for an article subject to be deemed notable. Lhb1239 (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• WP:AUTHOR requires evidence not bare assertion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  Regardless, she does not meet #1 in the listed criteria. -- see, I can just as easily assert the exact opposite. Evidence please. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

See the following links - Wheaton College has a collection of papers from Edith and her husband, Francis: [1]; Edith is cited in the following (see highlighted, cached version) [2]; she was cited in the Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism (as found at Google Books) [3]; she was cited in the book Hippies of the Religious Right (as found at Google Books) [4]; was the recipient of the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association book award in 1979 and 1982 (and in case you're wondering if the ECPA is legitimate, those on its board of directors represent a who's-who of Christian publishing houses including Tyndale House and InterVarsity Press - see this link for verification [5]); she was an article contributor for Christianity Today [6], [7]. While I can't prove it via internet research, I'm certain Christianity Today has reviewed her books in the past. There's likely more evidence out there, but I think the above certainly puts in her in the "meets notability critera" category. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• These links provide almost no (even remotely) independent coverage, and what independent coverage there is is, is mere citation -- not "significant coverage". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are some more references from Christianity Today, including ones about her, not just by her. If additional ones are needed from other publications, I can provide them. Drrll (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Mere search results from a source the topic is affiliated with is hardly evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above and WP:COMMONSENSE. What's next - merging Elisabeth Elliot into Jim Elliot? StAnselm (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per numerous articles in Christianity Today and other publications. Drrll (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as per notable independent coverage and her writings, as well as previously stated reasons. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 22:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose In principle I don't have a strong objection to merging, but merging on the grounds that Edith Schaeffer is not notable on her own I disagree with. Her notability stands apart from being married to Francis Schaeffer. I have counted over a dozen books that she has written.[[8]] Helen Kooiman Hosier included Edith Schaeffer in her book 100 Christian Women Who Changed the Twentieth Century. [[9]]DMSBel (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment So far, there's only been one Support and the remainder of "votes" have been for Oppose. Since the person proposing and supporting the merge have seemed to disappear following the evidence (I was challenged to provide) was easily provided, I'd like to know how we should proceed from here. Can this just be closed as majority oppose or...? Any knowlegeable advice here would be good. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Some expansion of the Edith Schaeffer article to account for notability might be worth considering. There seems little doubt she is notable, the article may not at present adequately demonstrate that.DMSBel (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I see 202.124.72.236 has been working on it and the additions should hopefully lay to rest questions about notability. Perhaps the Helen Hosier (100 Christian Woman...) reference could be added also? I am not familiar with the content of the page a few days ago, so maybe notability was less obvious then than now. DMSBel (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The only editor in favour of the merge was the proposer. I think we have a clear consensus here. A few more references will always help, but we have more than enough for notability. I think it's just about time to close this. -- 202.124.72.100 (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed there is no support for a merger other than the proposer. Edith Schaeffer's article could still be expanded by someone with more knowledge on the subject though.DMSBel (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wild Contradiction

"...he grew up with a drive to understand reality in its complexity, including the glorious and tragic human realities." it says.

Um. This seems to me to be contradicted by the whole of the rest of the article, which portray him as ideologically committed to a farrago of canned certitudes. I am sure that he was highly intelligent, boy and man, but seeking a comfortable set of anodynes is a different thing from trying to "understand reality in its complexity."

I have no problem with biographers taking a pleasant tone about subjects they like, but big puffy sillinesses like this seem to me out of place.

More interestingly, what is it about his character or upbringing that made him seek solace in this peculiar way? Surely that is a sounder sort of question for an encyclopedia to be pursuing.

For people interested in his ministry, The Daily Hatch, a BlogSpot of Everett Hatcher III, one of his followers, continues to publish almost daily. I don't recommend it, but it takes all kinds, I guess...

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Francis Schaeffer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901070521/http://www.covenantseminary.edu/apologetics/fsi.asp to http://www.covenantseminary.edu/apologetics/fsi.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110925072515/http://www.covenantseminary.edu/academics/institutesinitiatives/francisaschaefferinstitute/ to http://www.covenantseminary.edu/academics/institutesinitiatives/francisaschaefferinstitute/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Francis Schaeffer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061221055357/http://www.markheard.net/heardtribute/archive/schaeffer1_c_today1997.html to http://www.markheard.net/heardtribute/archive/schaeffer1_c_today1997.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)