Francis Schaeffer points out in How Should We Then Live:
"There is a flow to history and culture." (p.19)[1] From this flow we can learn from history and the lessons it teaches us about life and history.
and, in refering to the artists of the Renessaince,
"The results of their thought would flow through their fingers or from their tongues [or pens] into the external world. This is [as] true of Michelangelo's chisel, as it is of a dictators sword." (p.19)
then...
"People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of these presuppositions than even themselves may realize." (p. 19)
What is a worldview? a filter through which we view and understand and make decisions about data, a philosophy... this course is about working through our own personal philosophy.
From the film series, I note the following:
Schaeffer notes that "...nothing humanistic provides an adequate base for philosophy." I would clarify here that, in this statement, he is defining "humanistic" as a philosophy that has man at its center instead of God.
Roman gods were bigger and stronger men and women who competed, "amplified humanity" but not absolute divinity. The Roman value system had an "insufficient base" due to the lack of absolute truth (polytheism and the change from one 'emperor deity' to the next[2]).
The Roman Empire stretched from Britain to the Caspian sea, from the Euphrates to N. Africa across to Spain. It was vast... but we have seen in our quick survey that indeed things change and empires fall apart...
Rome was built on military might. Schaeffer says this is not enough... what is needed is knowledge of right and wrong. Consider the ramifications of this point for modern America. Consider recent events...
The Romans didn't care who you worshipped as long as you worshiped the emperor. So, why were the early Christian persecuted? They were seen as rebels because they did not worship the Roman gods. The Romans charged the early Christians with atheism, why?
Judaism had a kind of immunity from the worship of Roman gods. When Christians were rejected by synagogues, they were not protected by this immunity. They would not mix religions.
What is syncretism? The mixing of religions. There was no syncretism in the earliest church. There were attempts to mix (Gnosticism is an example; early forms of which were opposed by the apostles. John's letters partially spoke to these issues raised in the late first century.) were rejected by the earliest, infant church. Because according to earliest church teaching (the Bible), all gods, other than the Christian god, are false gods and are not to be worshipped. Because of this, Christians were counted as the enemy of Rome (the charge: atheism). This resulted in martyrdom: many died for the faith, some ran and hid, and others succumbed to the pressure of the Romans and bowed to the Roman gods, but many died.
Eventually, under Constantine, Christianity was allowed:
313: allowed Christianity
381: official Christianity
What difference does one's world view make? It guides how we respond to threat, suffering, pain, etc. Consider the earlier quotes at the top of the post.
_______________________________
[1] All quotes will be from How Should We Then Live by Francis Schaeffer, Fleming H. Revell Co., N.J., 1976
[2] Here I am reminded of the rejection of Stalinism in 1956 by Khrushchev... so much of what communists in the Soviet Union was in one speech thrown out the window.
Showing posts with label HSWTL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HSWTL. Show all posts
Middle Ages & Renaissance
When we think about the Middle Ages, we must not "throw the baby out with the bathwater"... It is without doubt (whatever Schaeffer thinks) that Aquinas was a great Christian thinker and is responsible for much great writing in theology and apologetics. Yet, I agree with Schaeffer (S.) on this point: the Middle Ages were NOT, as some think, the dark ages. Amazing theological, philosophical and political writings continue today to be important. Schaeffer states that Aquinas believed that though the will was fallen, the mind was not. One's understanding of the Fall becomes very important when deciding what to do with this statement. Schaeffer's point (as a Reformed thinker) is that the whole human being was fallen. Thus, man's need for God is total. S. is driving home the point that man cannot reach God alone. It is God who enables man to reach God. This is clear Reformed thinking, based on a world view that looks to the Bible as the sole authority.
Additionally, Schaeffer points out that, during the middle ages, a general corruptness was seen in the mistreatment of people: especially the poor... compare that to what we saw with the values of the early church who went out of their way to value all people as exemplified in their care for abandoned children. This is not to say that no one served people. As S. pointed out in the hospital, care for the sick and aged saw development in the Middle Ages. These people who served were individuals of means and willingness and certain orders of the church devoted themselves to the care of people and evangelism (I think of St. Gellert who, when the newly crowned Hungarian King Istvan called for missionaries to convert the pagan tribes to Christianity, gave his life while seeking to spread the Gospel). There were changes happening which were problematic, but as I said before, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
As we consider the Renaissance, Schaeffer is right that the great renaissance city was Florence - a city that has great art and culture. Renaissance means a rebirth of the 'greatness of man.' This greatness was seen in art. There are two works of art that I want to remind us of. These works of art are illustrative to Schaeffer's point and provide the basic things I want us to take away from this. The first is what I consider a clear and shocking step in Fouquet's Red Virgin (This is what Schaeffer called for our reference, The actual work is: Virgin and Child Surrounded by Angels (c.1450)) in which the artist mocks (my word, not S.'s) the Virgin Mary by using the mistress of the king as model, until now, Mary has been revered. I think Fouquet takes far too much liberty thus showing his world view.[1]
What was clearly intended to be the final point of his argument (as one could tell by the use of light and the background music) was Michelangelo's David. In this amazing work of art, the statue displays the greatness of man in a realistic form but in a very unrealistic projection of a David who would have been a teenage boy. Michelangelo, thus exemplifies the greatness of man with this breathtaking statue. S. argues that these and other works of art show the rise of Humanism, a philosophy that, without God, without universal values, places man at the center of the universe.
I contend that, while we must be warned about getting on a slippery slope and placing man at the center of the universe, we must also give credit to the Renaissance for the great revival in the arts which show the genius of the creativity of humans. With a world view that is based on following Jesus, one can understand this genius is possible since humans have within their very being the image of God. I prefer to look at the Renaissance as a place to see how God can be glorified through His supreme creation: man. Let's keep in mind that when we fail to give God the credit we may be on a philosophical slippery slope of giving man more credit than he deserves. Man is fallible, God is not. Man is created, God is the Creator. It is from God that humans receive their genius. The failure to recognize this is found in evidence from the Revolutionary Age, our next era of examination.
------------------------------
[1] Some have doubted that Fouquet knew who the model was. But another work by Fouquet himself painting of Agnes Sorel makes it very clear to me that when we look at these two paintings, Fouquet knew exactly what he was doing. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I think not.
Additionally, Schaeffer points out that, during the middle ages, a general corruptness was seen in the mistreatment of people: especially the poor... compare that to what we saw with the values of the early church who went out of their way to value all people as exemplified in their care for abandoned children. This is not to say that no one served people. As S. pointed out in the hospital, care for the sick and aged saw development in the Middle Ages. These people who served were individuals of means and willingness and certain orders of the church devoted themselves to the care of people and evangelism (I think of St. Gellert who, when the newly crowned Hungarian King Istvan called for missionaries to convert the pagan tribes to Christianity, gave his life while seeking to spread the Gospel). There were changes happening which were problematic, but as I said before, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
As we consider the Renaissance, Schaeffer is right that the great renaissance city was Florence - a city that has great art and culture. Renaissance means a rebirth of the 'greatness of man.' This greatness was seen in art. There are two works of art that I want to remind us of. These works of art are illustrative to Schaeffer's point and provide the basic things I want us to take away from this. The first is what I consider a clear and shocking step in Fouquet's Red Virgin (This is what Schaeffer called for our reference, The actual work is: Virgin and Child Surrounded by Angels (c.1450)) in which the artist mocks (my word, not S.'s) the Virgin Mary by using the mistress of the king as model, until now, Mary has been revered. I think Fouquet takes far too much liberty thus showing his world view.[1]
What was clearly intended to be the final point of his argument (as one could tell by the use of light and the background music) was Michelangelo's David. In this amazing work of art, the statue displays the greatness of man in a realistic form but in a very unrealistic projection of a David who would have been a teenage boy. Michelangelo, thus exemplifies the greatness of man with this breathtaking statue. S. argues that these and other works of art show the rise of Humanism, a philosophy that, without God, without universal values, places man at the center of the universe.
I contend that, while we must be warned about getting on a slippery slope and placing man at the center of the universe, we must also give credit to the Renaissance for the great revival in the arts which show the genius of the creativity of humans. With a world view that is based on following Jesus, one can understand this genius is possible since humans have within their very being the image of God. I prefer to look at the Renaissance as a place to see how God can be glorified through His supreme creation: man. Let's keep in mind that when we fail to give God the credit we may be on a philosophical slippery slope of giving man more credit than he deserves. Man is fallible, God is not. Man is created, God is the Creator. It is from God that humans receive their genius. The failure to recognize this is found in evidence from the Revolutionary Age, our next era of examination.
------------------------------
[1] Some have doubted that Fouquet knew who the model was. But another work by Fouquet himself painting of Agnes Sorel makes it very clear to me that when we look at these two paintings, Fouquet knew exactly what he was doing. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I think not.
The Enlightenment and Revolutionary Age
Schaeffer (S.) stated that da Vinci, for one, had ended in pessimism. So, and that humanism without God is doomed... indeed some postmodern thinkers have said that modernism (whose roots are in the renaissance and the enlightenment) truly shows its end result in Auschwitz. I, as a not quite post-modern, agree but I state that if there are no universal values... no God (who is greater than the human ability to reason) to give them... then who is to stop the crazies like Hitler and all the other people in the twentieth century who killed so many humans because they decided they should, or must? You see I think this is where Schaeffer gets it right. The key thing to remember is that values count. And that having a set of universal values gives direction to the human being.
Schaeffer skirted the enlightenment, mentioning it briefly in the Reformation episode that we did not watch and brings it up as a part of the revolution era. The Enlightenment is "the period of European thought characterized by the emphasis on experience and reason, mistrust of religion and traditional authority, and a gradual emergence of the ideals of liberal, secular, democratic societies." (Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1994) What he did say was that while Voltaire was exiled in England he was impressed by the relative peaceful revolution that took place in Britain when William and Mary ascended to the throne in the "Glorious" of "Bloodless" revolution. When he went back to France he tried to modify what he had observed using Enlightenment values instead of the universals that come from God. S. argues that the thing that saved the British was a "Reformation base." There is a good deal of sense in this argument since the Anglican (The Church of England) Church had gone through its own type of reformation while not being strictly "Reformed." The result in France was the horror of the French Revolution.
So we consider the age of revolution - the eighteenth through twentieth centuries saw uprisings all across Europe and her colonies which sought to overthrow governments, many of which were unjust.
Some of these revolutions were based (partly because of the reformation) upon sound and sometimes biblical values which resulted in peaceful revolutions, others fared worse... much worse... Especially in the twentieth century: Ukrainian famine in the 30s, Hungary in '56, Czechoslovakia in 68, Uganda in 75, Cambodia in the late 70s, Iran in the 70s, Afghanistan and Poland in the 80s, the Balkans in the 90s, Darfur today... Iraq...
S. argues that if laws are based upon biblical (universal) values then they are laws that do not allow the tyranny of kings. He notes that systems of checks and balances are needed by the fallen people in governments.
Conversely, Marxist-Leninism corrupted the revolution in Russia and created a one man elite in Stalin which resulted in the killing of millions when one considers the starving of millions of Ukrainians and the jailing of all political opponents in the Gulags.
Then, without universal values to guide, who was to stop Hitler from killing Jews, Gypsies and others that he considered less than human? Hitler's extermination of these millions was based primarily of the denial of the biblical value that ALL PEOPLE are valuable.
Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince by Samuel Rutherford provides a basis for law which Paul Robert illustrated in the stair of the Old Supreme Court building in Switzerland. Justice holds a scale in her right hand but her sword points to The Law of God... universal values as the foundation for
law. We might remember that S. followed by saying that biblical absolutes provide a basis for stopping the despotism of a group or individual or the 51% vote... further... when biblical universals are ignored, what is there to stop fallen people from oppressing one another??? S. gives examples of the failure of the church which should have spoken out about issues like slavery and oppression of women and children in factories...
AND SO a question of application exists for us as individuals and as a community... how should we respond to this call? if we say we embrace biblical universals, how has it changed our attitudes and actions as regarding justice? prejudice? racism? classism? what do our presuppositions tell us about what our world view really reflects? Are we any better? We too need the understanding of the universal values.
But I contend that humans have, since The Fall, always been in the middle of a "revolutionary" era. To deal with this we need to comprehend the reconciliation that God offers. Therefore, we will begin now looking at The Universal values of God by studying God himself.
Schaeffer skirted the enlightenment, mentioning it briefly in the Reformation episode that we did not watch and brings it up as a part of the revolution era. The Enlightenment is "the period of European thought characterized by the emphasis on experience and reason, mistrust of religion and traditional authority, and a gradual emergence of the ideals of liberal, secular, democratic societies." (Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1994) What he did say was that while Voltaire was exiled in England he was impressed by the relative peaceful revolution that took place in Britain when William and Mary ascended to the throne in the "Glorious" of "Bloodless" revolution. When he went back to France he tried to modify what he had observed using Enlightenment values instead of the universals that come from God. S. argues that the thing that saved the British was a "Reformation base." There is a good deal of sense in this argument since the Anglican (The Church of England) Church had gone through its own type of reformation while not being strictly "Reformed." The result in France was the horror of the French Revolution.
So we consider the age of revolution - the eighteenth through twentieth centuries saw uprisings all across Europe and her colonies which sought to overthrow governments, many of which were unjust.
Some of these revolutions were based (partly because of the reformation) upon sound and sometimes biblical values which resulted in peaceful revolutions, others fared worse... much worse... Especially in the twentieth century: Ukrainian famine in the 30s, Hungary in '56, Czechoslovakia in 68, Uganda in 75, Cambodia in the late 70s, Iran in the 70s, Afghanistan and Poland in the 80s, the Balkans in the 90s, Darfur today... Iraq...
S. argues that if laws are based upon biblical (universal) values then they are laws that do not allow the tyranny of kings. He notes that systems of checks and balances are needed by the fallen people in governments.
Conversely, Marxist-Leninism corrupted the revolution in Russia and created a one man elite in Stalin which resulted in the killing of millions when one considers the starving of millions of Ukrainians and the jailing of all political opponents in the Gulags.
Then, without universal values to guide, who was to stop Hitler from killing Jews, Gypsies and others that he considered less than human? Hitler's extermination of these millions was based primarily of the denial of the biblical value that ALL PEOPLE are valuable.
Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince by Samuel Rutherford provides a basis for law which Paul Robert illustrated in the stair of the Old Supreme Court building in Switzerland. Justice holds a scale in her right hand but her sword points to The Law of God... universal values as the foundation for
law. We might remember that S. followed by saying that biblical absolutes provide a basis for stopping the despotism of a group or individual or the 51% vote... further... when biblical universals are ignored, what is there to stop fallen people from oppressing one another??? S. gives examples of the failure of the church which should have spoken out about issues like slavery and oppression of women and children in factories...
AND SO a question of application exists for us as individuals and as a community... how should we respond to this call? if we say we embrace biblical universals, how has it changed our attitudes and actions as regarding justice? prejudice? racism? classism? what do our presuppositions tell us about what our world view really reflects? Are we any better? We too need the understanding of the universal values.
But I contend that humans have, since The Fall, always been in the middle of a "revolutionary" era. To deal with this we need to comprehend the reconciliation that God offers. Therefore, we will begin now looking at The Universal values of God by studying God himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)