May I make a comment. I began to read Schaeffer when I was converted in 1968
and found his works a great help and they led me onto wider things,
In May 1971 I went to L'abri in Switzerland before going to seminary and
Schaeeffer's son-im=law Udo Middleman gave me a list of books to study to
bring my geology and theology together. None other than Henry Morris and
other stuff. As I wasnt meek and mild then I told Udo that they were
rubbish and started a lively 4 weeks at L'abri. It took me most of a day to
crack Morris and find his fatal flaws. I became disillusioned with Schaeffer
who struck has sitting on the fence and leaning to YEC. I became more
disliiusioned when I actually read Barth and other wirters and found S
incapable of extracting the good in many writers. I agree with Dave that S
tells evangs what they want to here rather than wrestle with fellow
Christians who struggled against their upbring ing (fundi or modernist) to
give intellectual bite to their faith. I also found that S relied more on
pop summaries of thinkers such as Barth, Marcuse etc rather than actuaaly
reading the writer's work.
This was a great loss as S had many good things to say but never left his
fundamentalism which flawed his work. He simpluy had to claim that others
were wrong.
I was lucky at L'Abri as a Wheaton couple guided me in a formative stage and
pointed me to writers such as Warfield and Orr etc.
Looking back S was a great help to me but I had to leave his narrow outlook
behind.
Incidentally at a history of science conference in Shrewsbury last month
another speaker was the son of Hans Rookmaker.
Michael
> >I have to concur with Graham from a philosophical viewpoint. He is
> >popular, not scholarly. A number of years ago I was asked to teach a
> >Sunday school course with one of Schaffer's books as the text. I turned
> >it down because his "philosophy" begins where a legitimate study should
> >end. But, because he tells evangelicals what they wanted to hear, I knew
> >that such a suggestion would produce heat rather than light in the group,
> >for he was their champion. I have noted that one becomes a best-selling
> >author by not making people really think. Telling them what they want to
> >hear is, however, very effective.
>
> Dave, could you elaborate on this? In what way does Shaeffer begin at the
end?
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
> Keith B. Miller
> Department of Geology
> Kansas State University
> Manhattan, KS 66506
> kbmill@ksu.edu
> http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 07 2002 - 17:56:21 EDT