Talk:Francis Schaeffer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Dominion Theology

Some critics claim Schaeffer advocated a form of Dominion Theology, but he did not overtly subscribe to this tendency, although many who do praise Schaeffer for prompting their theological journey.

Removed for these reasons:

• From the Dominion Theology article, "It is influenced by postmillennialism, " - Schaeffer was a premillennialist. He was not influenced by postmillenialism, unless "a" influences "b" through "b"'s rejection of "a".

• "reasserting aspects of Christian nationalism." - I challenge you to find a single sentence of "nationalism" in Schaeffer's well-known writings.

• Dominion Theology:

A nested subset chart looks like this:
   Triumphalism
       Dominionism

• Schaeffer was not a triumphalist. As mentioned before, he was a premillenialist. He described ours as a "post-Christian era". Unless "triumphalism" boils down to "I advocate what is right, and my opponents advocate what is wrong", Schaeffer was not a triumphalist. If he was, then the word does not mean much when applied to any controversialist.

• Dominionism: "Dominionist thinking precludes coalitions between believers and unbelievers." - Schaeffer was a very vocal advocate of co-belligerency: the deliberate formation of mutually advantageous coalitions between believers and unbelievers.

In short, while contradicting one another, none of these articles even separately supports categorizing Schaeffer as an advocate of Dominion Theology. Please support fixing mis-statements of fact. Mkmcconn (Talk) 14:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not what you think about Schaeffer, the issue is that there are a number of articles and books in print that argue Schaeffer was the intellectual godfather of Dominionism in the U.S. You cannot delete material just because you do not like it. I will re-insert the claims for which I can find cites.--Cberlet 16:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, the issue is as I said above, whether there is reason to think that there are factual errors in either, the articles on Dominionism and Dominion Theology, or in this article. It is not as though "what a person thinks" is a matter of opinion, rather than of proof or disproof, when what he thinks is discerned by what he publishes.

The measure of his ideas is not the party that cites him as an influence. Van Til called himself a theonomist, for example. Theonomy is not about his views at all. Jesus Christ is an influence on Christian Identity. Which article does that bit of information belong in: Jesus, or Christian Identity? Surely you should say that this fact concerns those who cite his influence, not Jesus. Similarly, as defined in the article, Schaeffer is not a Dominionist. Rather, the Dominionist article should cite those Dominionists who credit Schaeffer's influence. As for Scheffer himself, he published his own self-identifications and affiliation. Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If he really is a "Dominionist" after all, then the Dominionist article should be fixed so that it describes him - something I'm not very interested in, since it's essentially a "hit piece" written by and for people who are attempting to fairly describe many diverse groups to whom they are opposed for basically the same reason. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is not a page advertising the views of Schaeffer. It is an encyclopedia entry on Schaeffer. What people have written about Schaeffer belongs here. Please note that the Wiki entry on Dominionism already does mention the role of Schaeffer.--Cberlet 18:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have difficulty representing the views of those you disagree with - i.e., me. I don't want an advertisement. I want accuracy. The Dominionism article mentions Schaeffer as you say. That's why I bring it up. It also defines Dominionism in a way that cannot include Schaeffer's views. It is self-contradictory because it is not factual. It is a rough attempt to draw a circle around people in terms that they would not use themselves, to create associations which in fact they deny, because their denial is irrelevant to the criticism implied in the categorization. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Schaeffer was a Christian triumphalist who pragmatically argued for a coalition against secular humanism. Sara Diamond, Fred Clarkson, and many others have written about this. You may disagree with them, but you may not erase the fact that they make this argument. The Dominionism article is a compromise that includes the work of many editors. The issue here is that you have one view of what are the "facts," when in reality there are many people who see the "facts" differently, and we need to work together to find a collective compromise for the text. No matter how much you think you are right, it is not an excuse for saying only you know what the "facts" are. Not here at Wiki. The way I would independently write about Schaeffer would probably horrify you. Here, I seek a reasonable compromise. Since Schaeffer is dead, you cannot claim to speak for him (I hope). Try quoting him, and I will quote his critics. That's fair.--Cberlet 19:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please read what I say and interact with that. In the Dominionism article, Dominionism is defined in a way that cannot define Schaeffer, because he explains himself in a way that contradicts it. In this article, Schaeffer is consequently associated with something that cannot describe him in light of what he says - see the part you have ignored, above. I'm not interested in your personal views of Schaeffer. I am asking you to square what he actually says about his views, with your description. Square his premillennialism with the implication that he, the "godfather of Dominionism", is "influenced by postmillennialism". Square the idea of "co-belligerency" with the statement that Dominionism is inimical to cooperation with unbelievers. Square it in turn with the assertion made in that article, that Dominionism is a beyond-political-activism attempt to dominate the political process. Square your definition of Dominion in terms of Genesis 1, with the fact that Schaeffer understands that passage in the way you say most Christians understand it.

"you" don't say these things? Then you fix them. That's fair. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, what you ask is not fair. I have pasted in actual quotes and cites. It is not my job and not your job to claim that these people are right or wrong. It is Wiki policy to maintain a NPOV while reporting multiple viewpoints.--Cberlet 20:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It really would do you a lot of good if you would simply stick to the issue, instead of so automatically slipping into nanny mode. If you defend a false association, based on a mis-definition, all the quotes in the world will not fix your error. If you want to keep the association, then fix the definition. It's not really that hard to do, and it is fair. You don't want to tell lies about people, or pass along lies, do you? I thought not. Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is not written in an NPOV manner:

"by compassionately demonstrating and reasonably defending the claim of Christ on all of life."

If there is a quote saying they do this, then quote it. Otherwise Wiki is endorsing the idea that Christ has a claim on all of life," which is POV. Also the Wiki links are just silly in this context.--Cberlet 19:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See #FSI below.

What is the issue?

OK, let's start over. Please do not call me a liar. If several books and aricles have been published claiming that Schaeffer influenced Dominionism, and even Dominion Theology, how is it a "lie" to point that out?--Cberlet 22:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The issue is getting tiresome to repeat. Here it is, once again. Please interact with the very simple comparison-statements that are made above, and try not to ignore them. Treat them as hypothetical, if that will help you to get yourself unstuck from preaching Wiki dogma at me. Ask yourself, "if Schaeffer can be cited as saying that cooperation with non-Christians is beneficial, necessary, and right, would that change how much credibility should be extended to a source that predicts that he cannot say this, as a Dominionist" ? Etc ...

It would also help if you would stop misrepresenting me and what I am trying to do here. It's not nice. With four thousand whatever edits, mostly on controversial topics, I have a pretty clear idea of what strong articles look like, and what bad ones are like, and I've helped to produce both. The reminders to write strong articles are not resented, it's just not the issue that is in debate, here (well ... at least I'm not debating it, even if you are).

Finally, for your question, it is certainly permissible to say that "Schaeffer influenced Dominionism, and even Dominion Theology". It is permissible, that is, as long as "Dominionism" and "Dominion Theology" are defined accurately enough that they truthfully describe the movements that Schaeffer actually influenced. In fact, it is permissible to say that he was a "Dominionist" and an advocate of a kind of "Dominion Theology", if those articles do not render the statement false. Right now, there is a problem, which I've tried to describe. Meanwhile, when I am not at work, and have time to do it, I'll help you with citations that illustrate what I'm describing. Stop fighting with me, and work with me, please. Mkmcconn (Talk) 00:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FSI

This is not written in an NPOV manner:

"by compassionately demonstrating and reasonably defending the claim of Christ on all of life."

If there is a quote saying they do this, then quote it. Otherwise Wiki is endorsing the idea that Christ has a claim on all of life," which is POV. Also the Wiki links are just silly in this context.--Cberlet 19:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wrote that, not Mkmcconn. It is essentially a paraphrase of a sentence from the website of the Francis Schaeffer Institute (see External links). I don't see why the links are "silly." It could perhaps be qualified a bit better, but those two goals do represent a good summary of Schaeffer's legacy. --Flex 23:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It needs to be made clear that this is a claim of the Institute. This would be NPOV: "Schaeffer argued that good Christians should be compassionately demonstrating and reasonably defending the claim of Christ on all of life." This page is increasing written from a POV that implies that what Schaeffer wrote is "the truth." You may believe that. That's OK. But here it is not NPOV.--Cberlet 23:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agreed that the POV could be improved, though I would prefer rephrasing the Institute's statement (first because their wording is awkward, IMHO, and second because articles shouldn't be strings of long quotes, as of course you know). You neglected to answer: why were those links "silly?" --Flex 02:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's so much fun talking to two people at the same time -- like a bad London farce.  :-) Yes, rewriting the long quotes would be better. Feel free. Obsessive linking distracts from meaning. In general it is best to link only pages that lead to more specific detail, rather than isolated word meanings.--Cberlet 03:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree about obsessive linking, but were those really obsessive? Compassion and rationality are two hallmarks of Schaeffer's approach that are noticeably lacking in many apologists. The phrasing I had seems more natural than "by demonstrating with compassion and defending with reason," which would make the hallmarks more obvious but the sentence more awkward. --Flex 11:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The issue not the specific order of words, the issue is presenting a claim without attribution. I'll fix it and maybe that will explain it best.--Cberlet 12:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I still prefer the previous wording for the reasons cited above. We can make that wording more NPOV and cite the source. Then I think we'd both be happy. :-) Still, I don't think linking compassion (which has a short section on religious compassion) and reason distract from the content in this case. Do you disagree? --Flex 14:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This would be POV:

"Democrats have set up the Boss Tweed Institute to train their members to be good citizens and good neighbors."

This would be NPOV:

"Democrats have set up the Boss Tweed Institute where they say they train their members to be good citizens and good neighbors."

This has to do with presenting material in a way that does not imply, through sentence construction, support for the claim. We report claims and attribute them. That's encyclopedic. As for the links, I think they are more distracting than useful, but I won't make a big deal about it.--Cberlet 14:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How's that? --Flex 15:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying you cannot see the difference between the two sentences? Just seeking clarity.  :-) --Cberlet 15:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that at all. That's why I wrote "...what they see as..." to qualify the statement that would otherwise be POV. --Flex 15:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just confused. The phrase "How's that" can mean "How is what I just did?" or "Can you repeat the question?" What you wrote solves the problem very nicely. Thanks. Sorry to appear dense.  :-) --Cberlet 15:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Antisemitism?

"Similarly, critics perceive anti-semitism in Schaeffer's oft-repeated theme of a Judeo-Christian worldview."

- surely this should be expanded if it is to be either fair or meaningful? I am not familar with much criticism of Schaeffer, although I am familiar with Schaeffers works, and therefore find the claim of anti-semitism implausible. But more importantly for wikipedia, whether i was familiar with Schaeffer or not I would find it hard, without further explanation, to comprehend how advocating the importance of a "Judeo-Christian worldview" can be anti-semitic. Maybe i'm not up-to-date with the politically correct terminology, but to this humble outsider, this seems rather like saying "critics percieve an anti-European tendency in x's theme of the importance of Western Culture"- it COULD make sense in some settings, given a lot more info, but as is merely confuses! -- Ian, 01.15.06

It is badly worded. --Cberlet 01:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if its badly worded could the original author, or someone else who knows and understands what he/she is referring to, reword and expand it? At the moment its an unsupported, and as i said, confusing, negative comment upon Schaeffer. That seems both not useful to the article and unfair to Schaeffer. ~~ Ian, 01.17.06

I tried a rewording.--Cberlet 03:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"Similarly, some critics perceive an inherent anti-semitism in the form of trating Judaism as a secon-class religion in Schaeffer's oft-repeated theme of a battle exclusively between Humanism and a Christian worldview."

...ummmm. Well, the spellings a bit iffy:-). This has a bit more explanation, but still is unclear to me. Are you implying that because Schaeffer spoke of a battle "exclusively" between Humanism and a Christian worldview (and not a Jewish worldview - although he did often use the the term "Judaeo-Christian") he is implicitly stating that Judaism is second class? Or that he specifically reffered to Judaism as a lesser religion in the context of the conflict of Christian and humanist worldviews? Or simply that Schaeffer believed only Christianity had the only true and fully and completely developed worldview necessary for the best and most humane society? If so, thats true, but simply places him in the same place as most other Evangelical Christian apologists and social commentators and implies nothing specific about Judaism.

Apologies if i seem to be on a "hobby-horse". I'm genuinely intriqued to know how Schaeffer can be accused of Anti-semitism in any meaningful sense, which (if any) critics have suggested this in print and how they derive it from Schaeffer's books or films. ~~Ian, 01.18.06

I find this accusation strange as well. Could you supply some reputable source(s) which make such an allegation? It seems like any exclusivistic religionist could be deemed "implicitly anti-Semitic" (or implicitly anti-Hindu or implicitly anti-Islamic or implicitly anti-Christian) if s/he set up a dichotomy as such. It seems more likely that Schaeffer was simply comparing the two most dominant (in terms of numbers or influence) worldviews in Western/American culture at the time and that, given the broader context of his writings, we could justly understand him to mean "the Judeo-Christian worldview." --Flex 14:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is actually clear in his writings that his ideal society is Christian, but I have put up a fact flag and if nobody provides a cite, then it should go. Please give it a few days.--Cberlet 15:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute that his ideal society is Christian. The question is, how does this view make him anti-Semitic but not, say, anti-Hindu? If it doesn't, then it's not worthy of note IHMO, though his broader exclusivism might be. --Flex 15:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, its been nearly a week. If there is no citation for or alteration of the anti-semitism comment in the next couple of days, i shall remove it at the end of this week, as surely the accusation of anti-semitism, or indeed any racial prejudice, is one which must be supported by clear references and explanation if it is not simply to be a slur. Is that reasonable? ~~Ian, 01.24.06

Earlier political activism

The new section that starts:

"It should also be noted that well before Schaeffer started his work at L'Abri and advocated activism in the public square, many American fundamentalists and evangelicals were already committed to both a social and political form of conservatism...."

Is fascinating, but doesn't it belong on the page on the Christian Right?--Cberlet 03:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cberlet. Also there is no reference for Fowler, hence the "citation needed" flag. --Awinger48 21:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Differences with Van Til

I deleted the italicized phrase in this sentence from the education section:

In 1935 he enrolled at Westminster Theological Seminary and studied under Cornelius Van Til, though he came to very different conclusions, but after a year's study he left to complete his studies at Faith Theological Seminary and graduated in 1938.

That phrase is too vague to be meaningful. How were his conclusions different? What was the nature of those differences? (Schaeffer did advocate a presuppositional Christian approach, after all, so "very different" seems a bit over-reaching without further explanation.) --Flex 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about it, but because Schaeffer believed his conclusions were (somewhat? ver?) different, though he was still a presuppositionalist of some sort, shouldn't the fact there was some difference at least be mentioned? To say he was influenced or taught by someone without saying how he differs seems like implicit judgment (guilt or otherwise depends on your perspective) by association. --128.192.162.181

Shaeffer did use the term 'presuppositionalism', but he didn't hold to any view that presuppositionalists would call presuppositionalism. He advocated examining people's assumptions and exposing them to critical reasoning. In other words, he appreciated philosophical dialogue. Presuppositionalists go much, much further. They in fact oppose philosophical reasoning on the ground that any philosophical argument gives in to a non-Christian viewpoint by assuming that a non-Christian worldview can lead to truth. They think the only God-honoring arguments are circular and thus prove nothing (which makes me wonder why they give them to begin with). In other words, they deny apologetics and then claim that they're doing apologetics. Schaeffer, on the other hand, just did apologetics. His view and the presuppositionalist view are as far from each other as you can get within this debate. --Parableman (as 69.207.31.140) 16:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that any presuppositionalists would assent to your description of their method (see presuppositional apologetics), but can you give us any sources regarding Schaeffer's use of presuppositionalism? --Flex 18:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Flex and Parableman -- Please read the addition and the references cited under the new section "Apologetics." Also if Schaeffer is going to be called a "combinationalist" and a "verificationist," it would be good to cite references. Thank you for all the work that has been done on this entry. I think Schaeffer would appreciate all the thinking that's been going on here :-) --Awinger48 21:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out why someone like Francis Schaeffer, uncontroversially a theist, would be classed with the logical positivists, who ruled out theism as unverifiable and thus meaningless. I know of no reason to think of Schaeffer as a verificationist, which seems to me to be a particularly strong version of evidentialism and not the in-between view that the article specifically assigns to him. I have no idea what combinationalism is supposed to be. That needs some explanation. It is indeed clear to me that Schaeffer should be somewhere other than presuppositionalism and evidentialism, but I'm not sure it's a linear scale with him halfway in between. He seems to me to be just more like classical apologetics than he is like the more modern evidentialists and presuppositionalists. --Parableman 16:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Schaeffer used evidentialism, the unbeliever's apologetic, to "take the roof off" and show the inconsistency of their worldview. Then presuppositionalism was used to show the consistency of the Christian worldview. Read the two references, the 1948 article and the Death in the City chapter. Schaeffer used "The Universe and Two Chairs" chapter to explain to me personally the consistency of the Christian worldview. Then try the following quote from Nancy Pearcey. She is describing Schaeffers two books, Escape From Reason and "The God Who Is There in her book Total Truth: Liberating Christianity From Its Cultural Captivity (Crossway, 2004, p. 453):

"In these books, Schaeffer explains the history of the two-story division of knowledge, often referred to as the fact/value split. He also describes his highly effective apologetics method, which combined elements of both evidentialism and presuppositionalism."

Pearcey knows more about Schaeffer than I'll every know so I think I'll bow to her description of his apologetics. I might add this quote to the section :-) Hope that I helped you some. Thank you for your comments. I'm still here for more discussion :-) --Awinger48 23:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions

User: 208.27.111.130. Please stop this campaign of unexplained deletions and rewrites that remove valid criticisms of the Christian Right and dominionism.--Cberlet 22:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Schaeffer as Godfather of Dominionism - Issue Still Alive One Year Later

The following promise was made last year:

The issue is not what you think about Schaeffer, the issue is that there are a number of articles and books in print that argue Schaeffer was the intellectual godfather of Dominionism in the U.S. You cannot delete material just because you do not like it. I will re-insert the claims for which I can find cites.--Cberlet 16:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The following statement is still there: "...he is considered by some critics to be the godfather of contemporary Dominionism."

I am requesting a cite for this claim of fact. The only statement like this that I can find are the myriad of mirror web sites for this Wikipedia entry. I am asking Cberlet because it appears in the previous discussion as if he was defending this statement. Therefore it appears as if he wrote the statement. If I'm wrong, my apologies. If I am also wrong about the procedure that I'm going through here, again my apologies. I am only requesting an honest answer for an honest question, and that statement begs the question, "Who wrote that?" I'm new here so thank you for any assistance you all may give :-) --Awinger48 02:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay Cberlet, you put two references for your statement of fact. But the only time Sarah Diamond uses the word "godfather," it is in reference to Irving Kristol (godfather of neo-conservatism, p.178). The only time you and Mr. Lyons use the word in your book, it was in reference to H. Ross Perot on p. 338. A word search of both works also does not connect the word "Puritan" to Schaeffer either. So I guess I'm still looking for a cite for this statement of fact. Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated :-) --Awinger48 21:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are you objecting to the phrase "intellectual godfather?" It is not in quotes, it is not implied that Diamond or anyone else has used the phrase. It accurately sumarizes the views being cited (among many others) that Schaeffer was significantly responsible for generating the ideas that resulted in the formation of the Christian Right, especially the dominionist tendency. What phrase would you like? "Intellectual nursemaid?" "Intellectual matchmaker?" As for Puritan (and Reformed), it is used in the context of explaining the early version of Calvinism brought to these shores by the Puritans and Pilgrims. How would you write about this without adding two paragraphs? The language and links helps readers understand the views of Schaeffer's critics. I do not understand your objections. And doing word searches to make you argument makes no sense. Not every single word needs a cite--the cites have to back up the basic claims made in the text.--Cberlet 22:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what the phrase, "considered by some critics" means on Wikipedia. It begs the question, "Who are the critics?" and it turns out that the only person who has called Schaeffer "the godfather of dominionism" is you, only in this Wikipedia article. "Godfather" is a big word. For the Common Man who uses Wikipedia, the word "Godfather" conjures up pictures of Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, and Bobby Deniro. "Godfather of Dominionism" conjures up someone who is worse than Rushdooney and the Reconstructionists. In the interest of fairness and NPOV especially, it would be much appreciated if you could somehow change this statement. Thank you and looking forward to more discussion with you :-) --Awinger48 12:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As you can see I honored your request for a cite in the Reconstructionist section. I also explained what I meant by the word basic. Could you explain, as part of the Wikipedia article, what you meant by the word godfather please? Thank you :-) --Awinger48 19:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As a Christian, to me a godfather is someone the parents respect and trust as a guide in moral philosophy and upstanding civic life. That is precisely the role played by Schaeffer to the Christian Right. If I had wanted to imply "Godfather", like the Mafia, I would have capitalized the "G." This is a petty and tiresome trivia contest, and a total waste of time. If you despise the word "godfather", change it for God's sake. It is better than suffering the death of a thousand discussion entries.--Cberlet 23:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Your definition of "godfather" above is excellent, and so is the connection you make with Schaeffer to that term. It is probably one that I would also embrace. Since this section is called "Schaeffer and the Christian Right," your statement could read, ..."a contemporary Neo-Calvinist perspective, he is considered by some to be the godfather of the Christian Right." But the term Dominionism is used throughout this section, not Christian Right. From what I've read so far in Wikipedia, Dominionism is being painted as a negative thing, even a bad thing. Considering what Reconstructionism has done, as well as other fringe extremists; in that sense I also see Dominionism as bad. So because of that, your word "godfather" conjures up bad things rather than good. You can't have a bad term, Dominionism, and expect the reader to understand your term, godfather, as something good. So I've quoted your book by calling Schaeffer "a pioneer of dominion theology" (p.255). Pioneer is a neutral term. My apologies for taking up so much of your time. Thank you for your consideration in this matter :-) --Awinger48 13:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

For FeloniousMonk: Cberlet had allowed me to change that part of that article which he had originally authored. What I wrote is an exact quote from his book. What else needs to be done for this particular issue to be resolved? Your consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated :-) --Awinger48 12:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

At 02:22, 19 September 2006 FeloniousMonk wrote the following on the History Page for the article: "(rv to last version by me. I still disagree, and chip has asked you to discuss your changes first and seek consensus)." So what more do you want to talk about concerning the change and consensus about it? :-) --Awinger48 11:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for discussion on the "godfather"/"pioneer" issue :-) --Awinger48 11:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Have waited five days for discussion on the "godfather"/"pioneer" issue. There have been no replies as of this date and time. That part of the discussion appears to be dead. I am therefore leaving that statement alone. I have added a counterstatement with three references. I have also edited the next sentence in the paragraph so that it reflects more accurately what Schaeffer said himself. A reference has also been given for that quote which he said was the central theme of all his books. But it was also understood that that theme was what he was challenging Christians to actually live out. As always - open for discussion if needed. Thank you :-) --Awinger48 13:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been on the road in Omaha, Nebraska (giving a speech on the Christian Right) and Washington, D.C. (attending a Christian Right conference). Some of us have lives outside of Wikipedia. Stop railroading this article based on your unwillingness to be patient and reasonable. You want a response? Slow down and act collectively and constructively.--Cberlet 02:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies to you Chip. I know you're a busy man. Frankly, I was looking for discussion from FeloniousMonk as much as I was looking for discussion from you because of the way he jumped into things and just said "I disagree and Chip wants to talk more" (paraphrase). I also thought that putting in a counterstatement might be more workable, balance wise, for both of us, instead of arguing over your statement. And now I see that you've done some major changes to that section. At first glance they looked very good, but after studying them more, I can see that there is more work to do. I added the actual quote about no theocracy in the anti-abortion tactics in the Manifesto section. Now it leads right into the next section about the Reconstructionists. Hope things went well in the Omaha and DC trip. If you care to share or talk about those conferences or anything for that matter, please feel free to use the Wikipedia email function :-) --Awinger48 14:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Arts Program at L'Abri and Articles with Unsourced Statements

This paragraph about Schaeffer, Rookmaaker, the Christian Right, and Steve Taylor was originally put in the Schaeffer and the Christian Right section at 6:23 28 December 2005 (UTC) by an Unknown Editor, except that their IP address is in the UK. Because of the controversial nature of this paragraph I am requesting a cite for this claim of fact. If none is provided, shouldn't this paragraph be removed? Do you all see the new category that has been added, probably by an administrator, in the category section. This whole article about Schaeffer has been labeled Articles with Unsourced Statements. Shouldn't we try and fix this article and get rid of that label? Just a suggestion :-) --Awinger48 10:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of Fundamentalism

User:Flex was correct in saying that "fundamentalist" by itself is vague and a very loaded term. Therefore the term "Christian Fundamentalist" was inserted instead. The word "premillennialist" is also important to keep in the article as long as the section on Dominionism remains. That is because the most outspoken of the Dominionists are those from the Reconstructionist movement who are postmillennial in their eschatology. If there needs to be discussion about these two terms, I'm open :-) --Awinger48 22:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Immigration Issue in Christian Manifesto Section

"Although A Christian Manifesto does not mention immigration as an issue, critics infer this..." Requesting cite for this statement of fact - which critic(s) in what written work? Or is Diamond being referred to again, and if so, why? The immigration issue was already mentioned in Diamond's quote directly above this paragraph. Just wondering :-) Thank you :-) --Awinger48 02:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This claim: "Although A Christian Manifesto does not mention immigration as an issue, critics infer this from his" ...misses the point that Schaeffer is discussing philosophical pluralism, not ethnic pluralism. This will require a cite to be re-introduced. I can see how someone could make the claim, but it needs to be cited.--Cberlet 22:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Frank Schaeffer Section

This is a request for discussion. Someone with the User name "Augustv" came in and completely rewrote this section without any discussion. At first I thought that what he or she said was correct and so I just went in and cleaned it up. But then I realized that all major changes to material already written need to be discussed first. So I went back in a second time,left the stuff that more or less makes this section current, and reverted back to a previous version for other things. Augustv, if I'm reading the History page right, has left. There is no way to contact that person unless he or she comes back. So I am looking for feedback as to the right or wrong of what has transpired. Thanks for the input that anyone might have :-) --Awinger48 20:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Please slow down!

A number of edits have introduced highly POV and dubious text into this article. Awinger48, you are right to be concerned to and raise these questions, but please note it is the end of summer and school is starting and for many editors this is not a part of the year they have time to spend editing Wikipedia.--Cberlet 22:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)