_______________________

“We Don’t Have Forever,”         by Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer:
The following transcript was recently provided by the courtesy         of Jeff Lawrence of Montgomery, AL. It originally was printed in the PCA         Messenger in 1980:

(Francis A. Schaeffer, founder of the L’Abri Fellowship,         author of 21 books, and principal in the “How Should We Then Live?”         and “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” film-seminar series,         was the featured speaker at the 1980 “Consultation on Presbyterian         Alternatives” sponsored by the Presbyterian Church in America. His         counsel, excerpted here from the full transcript of his Pittsburgh messages,         was heard by participants from several Presbyterian communions.)

Two biblical principles must be practiced simultaneously,         at each step of the way, if we are to be really Bible-believing Christians.          One is the principle of the practice of the purity of the visible church.          The other is the principle of an observable love among all true Christians.

Those of us who left the old Presbyterian Church USA (the         “Northern” Church) 44 years ago made mistakes which marked the         movement for years to come.  The second principle often was not practiced.         In particular we often failed to manifest an observable love for the fellow         believers who stayed in that denomination when others of us left.

Things were said which are very difficult to forget even         more than 40 years later.  The periodicals of those who left tended to         spend more time attacking the real Christians who stayed in the old denomination         than in dealing with the liberals.  Those who came out at times refused         to pray with those who had not come out.  Many who left totally broke         off all forms of fellowship with true brothers in Christ who did not come         out.

What was destroyed was Christ’s command to love each other.          And what was left was often a turning inward, a self-righteousness, a         hardness, and, too often, a feeling that withdrawal had made those who         came out so right that anything they did could be excused.

Further, having learned these bad habits, they later treated         each other badly when the new groups had minor differences among themselves.

We cannot stress both of the principles simultaneously         in the flesh.  Sometimes we stress purity without love.  Or we can stress         love without purity.  In order to stress both simultaneously we must look         moment to moment to the work of Christ and to the work of the Holy Spirit.          Without this, a stress on purity becomes hard, proud, and legalistic.          Without this, a stress on love becomes compromise. Spirituality begins         to have real meaning in our lives as we begin to exhibit (and the emphasis         here is on exhibit, not just talk) simultaneously the holiness of God         and the love of God.  Without our exhibition of both, our marvelous God         and Lord is not set forth.  Rather, a caricature is set forth and He is         dishonored.

We paid a terrible price for what happened in those early         days.  As some of you now come out of your denominations, please do learn         from our mistakes.  Each pastor, each congregation must be led by the         Holy Spirit.  If some disappoint you, do not turn bitter.

One of the joys of my life occurred at the Lausanne Congress         (the 1974 International Congress on World Evangelization in Lausanne,         Switzerland). Some men from the newly formed Presbyterian Church in America         asked me to attend a meeting they and others had called there. When I         arrived I found that it was made up of Southern men who had just left         the Presbyterian Church US to form the PCA and some Christians who were         still in the PCUS. Someone from each side spoke. Both said to me that         the meeting was possible because of my voice and especially my little         book, The Church Before the Watching World (published by InterVarsity         Press). I must say I could have wept, and perhaps I did. It is possible         for us to do better than we would naturally do. It is not possible if         we ignore the fleshly dangers and fail to look to our living Lord for         his strength and grace.

Those of us who left our old denomination in the Thirties         had another great problem, as I see it. It was confusion over where to         place the basic chasm which marks off who we are. Does that chasm mark         us as those who are building Bible-believing churches and that on this         side of the chasm we hold the distinctives of being Presbyterian and Reformed?         Or is the primary chasm that we are Presbyterian and Reformed and that         we are divided from all who are not? The answer makes a great deal of         difference.

When we go to a town to start a church, are we going there         with the primary motivation to build a church which is loyal to Presbyterians         and the Reformed faith, or are we going there to build a church which         will preach the Gospel which historic, Bible-believing Christianity holds,         and then on this side of that chasm teach that which we believe is true         to the Bible in regard to church government and doctrine? The difference         makes a difference to our mentality, to our motivation, and to the breadth         of our outreach. I must say, to me one view is catholic, biblical and         gives good promise of success; the other is introverted and self-limiting,         yes, and sectarian. I spoke of a good promise of success. I mean on two         levels: First in church growth and a healthy outlook among those we reach;         second, in providing leadership in the whole church of Christ.

We alone do not face this problem of putting the chasm         at the wrong place, of course. A too zealous mentality on the Lutheran         view of the sacraments is the same. A too sectarian mentality in regard         to the mode of baptism is another. The zeal of the Plymouth Brethren for         an unpaid ministry is often the same. No, it is not just our problem.         But it is our problem. To put the chasm in the wrong place is to fail         to fulfill our calling, and I am convinced that when we do so we displease         our Lord.

Those who remain in the old-line churches have their own         set of problems. In contrast to the problem of hardness to which those         who withdraw are prone, those who remain are likely to develop a general         latitudinarianism. One who accepts ecclesiastical latitudinarianism easily         steps into a cooperative latitudinarianism which can become a doctrinal         latitudinarianism and especially a letdown on a clear view of Scripture.

This is what happened in certain segments of what I would         call the evangelical establishment. Out of the evangelical latitudinarianism         of the Thirties and Forties grew the letdown in regard to the Scripture         in certain areas of the evangelical structure in the Seventies. Large         sections of evangelicalism today put all they can into acting as though         it makes no real difference as to whether we hold the historic view of         Scripture or the existential view. The existential methodology says that         the Bible is authoritative when it teaches “religious” things but         not when it touches that which is historic, scientific, or such things         as the male/female relationship.

Not all who have stayed in the liberal denominations have         done this, by any means, but it is hard to escape.  I don’t see how those         who have chosen to stay in (no matter what occurs) can escape a latitudinarian         mentality which will struggle to paper over the differences on Scripture         in order to keep an external veneer of unity.  That veneer in fact obscures         a real lack of unity on the crucial point of Scripture.  And when the         doctrinal latitudinarianism sets in we can be sure from all of church         history and from observation in our own period of church history that         in just a generation or two the line between evangelical and liberal will         be lost.

This is already observable in that the liberals largely         have shifted to the existential methodology and have expressed great approval         that the “moderate evangelicals” have done so.  The trend will         surely continue.  Unless we see the new liberalism with its existential         methodology as a whole, and reject it as a whole, we will, to the extent         to which we tolerate it, be confused in our thinking.  Failure to reject         it will also involve us in the general relativism of our day and compromising         in our actions.

The second major problem of those who stay in the liberally         controlled denominations is the natural tendency to constantly move back         the line at which the final stand will be taken.  For example, can you         imagine Clarence Macartney, Donald Grey Barnhouse or T. Roland Phillips         being in a denomination in which the baffle line was the ordination of         women?  Can you imagine these great evangelical preachers of the Twenties         and Thirties (who stayed in the Presbyterian Church USA) now being in         a denomination which refuses to ordain a young man whose only fault was         that while he said he would not preach against the ordination of women         yet he would not say he had changed his mind that it was unbiblical? Can         you imagine that these leaders of the conservative cause in an earlier         era would have considered it a victory to have stalled the ordination         of practicing homosexuals and practicing lesbians?  What do you think         Macartney, Barnhouse, and Phillips would have said about these recent         developments?  Such a situation in their denomination would never have         been in their minds as in the realm of conceivable.

The line does move back.  In what presbytery of the Northern         Presbyterian Church can you bring an ordained man under biblical discipline         for holding false views of doctrine and expect him to be disciplined?

Beware of false victories.  Even if a conservative man         is elected moderator of the general assembly (as Macartney was in 1924),         it would amount to absolutely nothing.  Despite the jubilation among conservatives         at Macartney’s election, the bureaucracy simply rolled on, and not too         many years later conservative leader J. Gresham Machen could be unfrocked.          Nelson Bell was elected moderator of the Southern Church later (in 1972),         and nothing changed.  The power centers of the bureaucracy and the liberally-controlled         seminaries were unmoved.

There are always those who say, “don’t break up our         ranks … wait a while longer … wait for this … wait for that.”         It is always wait.  Never act. But 40 years is a long time to wait when         things are always and consistently getting worse.  And (with my present         health problem) I tell you soberly, we do not have forever to take that         courageous and costly stand for Christ that we sometimes talk about. We         do not have forever for that. We hear many coaxing words, but watch for         the power structure to strike out when it is threatened. If the liberals’         power is really in danger or if they fear the loss of property, watch         out!

What of the future? We live in a day that is fast-moving.          The United States is moving at great speed toward totally humanistic orientation         in society and state.  Do you think this will leave our own little projects,         our own church, and our own lives untouched?  Don’t be silly. The warnings         are on every side. When a San Francisco Orthodox Presbyterian congregation         can be dragged into court for breaking the law of discrimination because         it dismissed an avowed, practicing homosexual as an organist, can we be         so blind as to not hear all the warning bells go off?  When by a ruling         of a federal court the will of Congress can be overturned concerning the         limitation on the willful killing of unborn children, should not the warning         bells go off as to the kind of pressures ahead of us?

Who supports these things?  The liberal denominations         do, publicly, formally, and financially.  And it puts into a vise those         of us who stand for biblical morality, let alone doctrine.  Beyond the         denominations, it is their councils of churches that support not only         these things but also terrorist groups. They give moral support and money.          Should we support this by our denominational affiliation? We may seem         isolated from the results for a time but that is only because we are too         blind to see.

I don’t think we have a lot of time.  The hour is very         late, but I don’t think it is too late in this country. This is not a         day of retreat and despair.  In America it is still possible to turn things         around.  But we don’t have forever.

Reprinted from the PCA Messenger
© 1980, Christian Education Committee, PCA
P.O. Box 39, Decatur, Georgia 30031

Memorial         for Dr. Schaeffer, from the Minutes of Missouri Presbytery (PCA), July         20, 1984: