Dr. C. Everett Koop on Baby Doe, euthanasia, abortion

Uploaded on Nov 3, 2008

Dr. Koop

Joycelyn Elders was the first black Surgeon General of the USA and I have a picture of her with Dr. C. Everett Koop taken in 1993. I used to watch her husband Oliver coach at Hall High School and he always had a great basketball team. Sidney Moncrief was one of star players in the past.

On 2-25-13 we lost a great man when we lost Dr. C. Everett Koop. I have written over and over the last few years quoting Dr. C. Everett Koop and his good friend Francis Schaeffer. They both came together for the first time in 1973 when Dr. Koop operated on Schaeffer’s daughter and as a result they became close friends. That led to their involvement together in the book and film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” in 1979.

In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented  against abortion (Episode 1),  infanticide (Episode 2),   euthenasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close look at the truth claims of the Bible. 

In this 1979 film series they dealt with the big social issues and predicted what social problems we have in the future because of humanism. For instance, they knew that the Jack Kevorkians of the world would be coming down the pike. They predicted that there was a slippery slope from abortion to infanticide to youth euthanasia brought on by the materialistic worldview.

Chuck Hagel is, of course, not the first presidential nominee to face stiff opposition in the Senate. In 1981, Democrats spent eight months battling the nomination of C. Everett Koop to be surgeon general. Ronald Reagan’s choice of Koop, who was known as an outspoken foe of abortion, was seen as a sop to rightwing evangelicals and to the new right, which had successfully used opposition to abortion as a wedge issue to defeat Democrats in the 1980 election. But Koop, who died on Monday at age 96, turned out to be one of the great surprises of the Reagan years. By the time he left office in 1989 the same people who had vilified him as Dr. Kook were singing his praises, and in 1995, Bill Clinton awarded Koop the Medal of Freedom.

Koop did change his views in office, but he was also misjudged by both supporters and detractors. Koop was a highly respected surgeon, the founder of the department of pediatric surgery at Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia. He was also a devout Christian and impassioned foe of abortion. In 1975, Koop and theologian Harold O.J. Brown met at Billy Graham’s home in Minneapolis to found the Christian Action Council (CAC), the first Protestant lobby against abortion. Koop wrote two books against abortion, including a 1979 tract with evangelist Francis Schaeffer, Whatever Happened to the Human Race. Koop and Schaeffer also produced an anti-abortion movie of the same name that they took around the country. It featured photos of dolls, symbolizing aborted babies, strewn over the floor of the Dead Sea.

Koop’s position on abortion was entirely uncompromising. In The Right to Live, the Right to Die, Koop explained how he had once believed that “Christian compassion” allowed for abortion in “hard cases,” but that under the influence of Brown he had decided to taken an absolute stand “for the sanctity of life.” Koop also saw the issue of abortion in the most extreme moral and religious terms. “The legalization of abortion on demand in the United States,” Koop wrote, “will someday be looked upon by historians as the last turning point of a materialistic society in abandoning the advantages accruing to our society from a Judeo-Christian heritage.”

Prior to becoming surgeon general, Koop’s other social views were equally conservative. He denounced “women’s lib” and “gay pride” for encouraging “anti-family trends.” He declared that the establishment of “government-subsidized childcare centers” was a sign that the U.S. was following the same path as “Hitler’s Germany.” And his religious views were, if anything, even more extreme. Raised in the Dutch Reform Church, Koop was not only a Fundamentalist who rejected the theory of evolution, but also a Calvinist who believed, in Harold O. J. Brown’s words, that “government has the obligation to uphold fundamental principles of morality.” In The Right to Live, the Right to Die, Koop defended the practice of outlawing “private activity … repugnant to the moral sensitivity of the American people. That is why we have laws against such seemingly private engagements as homosexuality, sodomy, prostitution, and adultery.”

But even before taking office, Koop’s views diverged from the radical conservative of the day. Koop had no interest in using abortion as a political wedge issue. His anti-abortion activity was not part of a broader political agenda; it was entirely an expression of his religious belief. Koop worked against abortion in the same spirit that he worked with MAP International—a Third World medical relief agency—or with Philadelphia’s Evangelical Family and Child Service. Koop distrusted the rightwing anti-abortion lobbies. “He was really suspicious of ideology,” Brown explained, “so where you have political ideology that is being presented as a sort of necessary consequence of a theological position he was very suspicious of that.”

In addition, as his colleagues from Philadelphia testified at his hearings, Koop viewed his responsibility as a “health man” as being above politics. He saw “the office” of surgeon general as having a certain function that must be performed regardless of the surgeon general’s own beliefs and wishes. For instance, if there were a conflict between protecting the public health and condoning what he believed were immoral actions, the surgeon general would have to protect the public health. Similarly if there were a conflict between medical evidence and religious belief, then the surgeon general would have to act on the basis of medical evidence even if doing so went against his religious beliefs. From the beginning, this distinction put him at odds with new right activists who wanted him to use his position as a bully pulpit for their political agenda.

Koop first offended Reagan conservatives, including his chief Senate sponsor, North Carolina Republican Senator Jesse Helms, by his outspoken campaign against tobacco products. At issue was not merely an important Republican constituency, Southern tobacco growers, but also the administration’s unequivocal support for free enterprise. In May 1984, Koop issued a blistering condemnation of smoking and the tobacco industry. Attacking the effects of “passive smoking,” when non-smokers were forced in inhale smoke from others’ cigarettes, Koop called for a “smokeless society by the year 2000.” Koop also endorsed smoking bans in workplaces and other public places. In response, Helms called for his resignation, and the administration sabotaged his attempt to strengthen anti-smoking regulations.

Koop clashed directly with the administration two years later when he came out in favor of a bill banning cigarette advertising. White House Chief of Staff Don Regan had tried to prevent his appearing before Henry Waxman’s House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, but Regan finally agreed to Koop’s appearance on the condition that a Justice Department official accompany him and speak against the bill. An incredulous Koop put on his best Dr. Johnson imitation when Ohio Rep. Buz Lukens defended cigarette advertising on the grounds that “more discussion… is the answer rather than less.” Koop replied, “I don’t think advertising, sir, is discussion.”

But Koop really began to alienate the Republican right when he started taking positions on the growing AIDS epidemic. New right conservatives like Paul Weyrich and Howard Phillips blamed the AIDS epidemic on homosexuals, and wanted the Reagan administration to use the epidemic to point out the immorality of homosexuality. During Koop’s first term, his immediate superior, Assistant Secretary Edward Brandt, ordered him not to take a public position on AIDS, but after Brandt resigned, Koop began answering reporters’ questions on the epidemic. Then, after the 1984 election, Reagan, put on the defensive about the administration’s lack of action on the disease, asked Koop to prepare a report.

After personally going through 27 drafts, Koop issued his report in October 1986. Koop’s report tried to calm the rising hysteria about AIDS by explaining that it could not be spread through casual social contact, but the report raised hackles on the right by calling for sexual education about AIDS in elementary school and by advocating the use of condoms by heterosexuals and homosexuals to prevent the spread of infection. Koop also addressed directly the new right’s attempt to blame the epidemic on gays. “At the beginning of the AIDS epidemic many Americans had little sympathy for people with AIDS,” Koop wrote. “The feeling was that somehow people from certain groups ‘deserved’ their illness. Let us put those feelings behind us. We are fighting a disease, not a people.”

Koop’s position was based on the assumption that as a “health man” he had to recommend programs that protect the public health even if they indirectly condoned behavior that he disapproved of. “With AIDS,” Koop later explained, “the law has to wink at certain things. If you find all the prostitutes in a given community are infected, you have to step in and do something about it.” Koop also believed that AIDS education had to be credible. “When you approach the 70 percent of sexually active teenagers and tell them to just say no, they laugh at you,” Koop said.

Koop’s pamphlet created a furor on the right. In its January 1987 issue, Conservative Digest charged that Koop is “proposing instructing in buggery for schoolchildren as young as the third grade on the spurious grounds that the problem is one of ignorance and not morality.” National Review accused Koop of “criminal negligence” in recommending the use of condoms. In response, Koop accused National Review of “letting politics and ideology supersede science.”

There is no doubt that Koop’s actions reflected his view that as surgeon general he had to act as a “health man” rather than as a moralist. But when Koop talked about the issues raised by the AIDS epidemic, it became evident that his morals have also changed. Koop has lost some of his most extreme Calvinist convictions. In talking about AIDS, Koop went out of his way not to blame the gay community. He now rejected the idea that the state should pass laws against homosexuality. “I don’t think such laws are enforceable,” he said.  

Koop’s attitudes changed because of his encounter with the AIDS epidemic. “He suffers with the disease of AIDS and he suffers with prospect of millions of being affected. This is an agonizing situation for him, and it is very unsettling,” Harold O.J. Brown explained. Koop let the struggle against AIDS color his views on a wide range of subjects in the same way the he once let the struggle against abortion color his view of “women’s lib.” He no longer condemned homosexuality, because he saw homosexuals as innocent victims of a terrible disease. He turned away from the right and from his former allies because he believed they lack compassion for AIDS victims.

Koop’s last controversial act as Surgeon General was a report on the psychological effects of abortion is bound to raise new questions about whether he had abandoned his absolute opposition to abortion. Ironically, Reagan had asked Koop to do the report to mollify pro-life lobbyists angered by the administration’s unwillingness to press their case defending the dismissal of a pro-life activist at Health and Human Services. White House aide Dinesh D’Souza had convinced the president that by documenting the terrible psychological effects of abortion, Koop’s report would lay the basis for overturning Roe v. Wade. But in preparing the study, Koop acted as a “health man” rather than as an anti-abortion activist.  He and several staff people went over the scientific evidence carefully, and became convinced that past studies demonstrating post-abortion stress were flawed.

Koop remained unalterably opposed to abortion, but he remained a professional committed to medical science and to the responsibilities of his office. “What has given me so much trouble in this job from the right,” Koop told me in 1988 when I did a profile of him for The New Republic, “is that I separate ideology, religion and other things from my sworn duty as a health officer in this country.” Koop remains a stirring example—to both left and right—of how a public official should conduct himself. He was one of the most impressive officials I ever had the chance to interview.

share this article on facebook or twitter

This is a picture of Dr. C. Everett Koop with Joycelyn Elders from Little Rock.

M. Joycelyn Elders (1993-1994)

Joycelyn Elders was born Minnie Lee Jones in Schaal, Arkansas on August 13, 1933. In college, she changed her name to Minnie Joycelyn Lee (later using just Joycelyn). In 1952, she received her B.A. in biology from Philander Smith College in Little Rock, Arkansas. After working as a nurse’s aid in a Veterans Administration hospital in Milwaukee for a period, she joined the Army in May, 1953. During her 3 years in the Army, she was trained as a physical therapist. She then attended the University of Arkansas Medical School, where she obtained her M.D. degree in 1960. After completing an internship at the University of Minnesota Hospital and a residency in pediatrics at the University of Arkansas Medical Center, Elders earned an M.S. in Biochemistry in 1967.

Elders then received a National Institutes of Health career development award, also serving as assistant professor in pediatrics at the University of Arkansas Medical Center from 1967. She was promoted to associate professor in 1971 and professor in 1976. Her research interests focused on endocrinology, and she received certification as a pediatric endocrinologist in 1978. She became an expert on childhood sexual development.

In 1987, Elders was appointed Director of the Arkansas Department of Health by then-Governor Bill Clinton. Her accomplishments in this position included a ten-fold increase in the number of early childhood screenings annually and almost a doubling of the immunization rate for two-year-olds in Arkansas. In 1992, she was elected President of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers.

Elders became Surgeon General of the Public Health Service on September 8, 1993, appointed by President Clinton. She was the first African American to serve in the position. As Surgeon General, Elders argued the case for universal health coverage, and was a spokesperson for President Clinton’s health care reform effort. She was a strong advocate for comprehensive health education, including sex education, in schools. She was outspoken in her views, and was forced to resign after only 15 months in the position as a result of a controversial remark about sex education. Her last day in office was December 31, 1994. She returned to the University of Arkansas Medical Center as professor of pediatrics.

Dr. C. Everett Koop is pictured above.

Sadly there are many people that have actually thought that Francis Schaeffer’s son Franky is really the same person as his father but nothing can be farther from the truth. 

I had several opportunities to hear Frank speak in Little Rock in the 1990’s but I always passed them up since it was so painful to read the hateful things he had said about his parents. The one thing that I don’t understand about Frank is what theologically made him move away from the evangelical view. It seems to me that maybe he left because of some of the conceited leaders of the religious right that he met.

I am sure you have heard of the book “Crazy for God” by Frank Schaeffer. Dr. Douglas Groothuis is professor of philosophy at Denver Seminary and in his review of “Crazy for God” said the following:

Print | Email

Author of “Crazy” Escapes From Reason
Franky Plays Schaeffer Card, Again 

By Douglas Groothuis

Those of us deeply touched by the life and writings of Francis and Edith Schaeffer may be interested in Crazy for God, a memoir by their son and youngest child, Frank (formerly Franky), who is now in his mid-fifties. Given my interest in all things Schaeffer, I found the book in turn fascinating and infuriating. I first learned of it by reading a cynical and sneering review in The Nation, a secular leftwing publication. The reviewer took the book to be a repudiation of evangelical faith, the Christian Right, and an expose of the hypocrisy of many Christian leaders, most notably, Francis and Edith Schaeffer.

That review outraged me, but also piqued my curiosity. What had become of Franky Schaeffer, the producer of two significant film series featuring the ideas of his father — How Should We Then Live? and Whatever Happened to the Human Race? — and a man whose own books I had read in the early 1980s? Could Frank offer some insights into the life of his family and about the evangelical world he left behind?

The answer is: yes and no, but mostly no. There is no need to recount the details of this overly long, self-indulgent, typically glib, and often distasteful book (filled with pointless profanity). Frank does not sugar-coat his own many failings, but neither is he discreet about anyone else’s. The mud flies fast in all directions. He does, however, give some room to the written comments of some family members and friends.

Lost in the Shuffle,
Obsessed With Sex
The short story of his life is that young Schaeffer was always a misfit. As the youngest child with three older sisters, who was raised at L’Abri (a kind of educational commune in Switzerland that afforded anything but a normal upbringing), Frank never fit it. His bout with polio at age two left him with a bad leg. He didn’t share the extroverted piety of his mother — and often resented it. He was not particularly close to his father, but does recount some meaningful experiences with him, such as a trip to Florence, Italy, where they both drank in its aesthetic wonders. Frank does, however, write of his dad’s admirable qualities, such as facing his own death with courage.

Frank claims to have been lost in the shuffle at L’Abri and barely received an education. He was eventually sent to boarding schools. Since he had dyslexia, he failed to achieve what was expected. He returned to L’Abri, lost his virginity, took up painting, and, at seventeen, impregnated a young woman whom he eventually married and to whom he remains married.

While Frank says nothing of extramarital affairs and seems quite devoted to his wife, the book’s descriptions of his earlier libidinal exploits, whether in solitaire or through liaisons, are anything but restrained (the book is rather obsessed with sexual themes). Although he initially found some success in showing his paintings, Frank put that aside to produce films promoting his father’s ideas about history, culture, ethics, and theology. Along the way, he became well known and in demand as a speaker and writer himself, commanding large audiences and large royalties for a time.

But something went radically wrong as Frank became popular and was exposed to many leaders in the evangelical world. In the wake of Francis Schaeffer’s final illness (he died of cancer in 1984 at the age of 72), Frank was expected to continue the legacy. He could not do this, though, because he had become disenchanted with the world of Christian celebrities and their followers. He was performing a role he could not own.

A few years after his father’s death, he went back to filmmaking, producing several movies that he deems less than stellar if not abysmal. His failures in film and his departure from the high-paying evangelical circuit left him in dire straights — even reducing him to shoplifting for food, shoving frozen pork chops into his pants. (He later reimbursed the store.)

Redemption, Writing,
Cruelty to Mom and Dad
Schaeffer’s redemption was found in his writing — not screenplays, but novels and nonfiction. His first novel, Portofino (1994) was a loosely autobiographical tale about a religious family’s holiday to a small and sumptuous Italian village. Its hero was young Calvin Becker (aka Frank), who luxuriated in the Mediterranean romanticism so far removed from the religious vocation of his family.

Portofino was well-received in the secular world, while generally panned or ignored by Christians. When I read a review of it, my first thought was, “How can Frank be so cruel to his parents? How could someone profit by spreading gossip like this?” Well, his formula worked, and he used it for two other novels. After these successes, Frank wrote several books about his son’s military experience and the experience of being in a military family.

In the early 1990s, he converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, although he seems to be something of an agnostic who simply appreciates the liturgy and traditions of the church. At one point, he even questions the existence of God (388). Apparently, for Frank, God need not exist in order to be richly celebrated through Orthodox forms. For him, religion is not a matter of knowledge: “We never have any real information about anything important. . . . The most ridiculous thing in the world is a Ph.D. in theology, an oxymoron if one ever existed” (102).

This grandiose claim is asserted rather than argued. If this claim is true, the idea that “We never have any real information about anything important” would itself fail to be “real information” (apparently he means knowledge), since the claim itself would be something quite important to know. While many holding doctorates in theology obfuscate more than they enlighten, the notion of developing systematically the doctrines of Scripture or of philosophically justifying theological claims is by no means oxymoronic. Or if it were somehow oxymoronic, Frank gives no reason to think so, outside of the idea that God and other biblical realities are invisible. Of course, thoughts and subatomic particles are invisible as well, but that doesn’t render psychology or physics “oxymoronic.”

Rather than assessing all of Frank’s main claims in detail, I will offer a few responses to some of the more salient issues he raises. Having read four of Frank’s books and having heard him lecture a few times, I never sensed in him the deep compassion or reflection that came from his father. Frank was angry: One of his books is called A Time for Anger.

I recently listened to some old tapes of his answers to questions during the tour of How Should We Then Live? (before I knew of Crazy for God) and sensed that he was bluffing to some extent, all the while taking himself very seriously. (He admits as much in the book.) But the book never makes very clear just why Frank rejected the evangelical faith of his parents. He certainly dishes out much dirt about his family’s foibles and sins, while also praising them in some respects, such as their genuine compassion for the many — and often difficult — visitors to L’Abri over the years. “Dad’s sensitivity was disarming,” he writes. “Bishop Pike, the famous self-proclaimed liberal minister and writer, told me that my father was one of the most compassionate men he ever debated. And after Timothy Leary had several long discussions with Dad, he said, ‘If I thought your father is typical of other Christians, I’d reconsider my position’ ” (78-79).

Bizarre Underbelly,
Evangelical Celebrity
Frank also reveals some of the bizarre underbelly of high-profile Christian personalities and his (and his father’s) disgust over this. (But despite the book’s promotion material, there is really very little given on this topic.) However, what is lacking is any cogent explanation for why he left the faith of his parents — beyond a few remarks about his various doubts along the way. He does rightly point out that evangelicals are too celebrity-oriented and lack a rich liturgical tradition. But that in itself is no reason to deny historic Christian claims, since one could abandon evangelical-dumb and become a high church Lutheran, Presbyterian, or Anglican. Sustained glibness does not make for a compelling account of losing one’s faith.

Frank goes into great detail concerning the sometimes tempestuous marriage of his parents and the flaws of both parents individually. Francis was moody to the point of sometimes thinking and talking of suicide. He was “abusive” toward Edith on some occasions and once threw a vase at her. Frank does claim that during the last six years of his father’s life, when the elder Schaeffer was dealing with cancer, his father ceased to be abusive, never complained about this illness, and faced it with grace. Edith was so super-spiritual as to become impossible (even to Francis). She was domineering and resented not living in a higher-class setting. And so on.

I question the prudence of these revelations. What purpose do they serve besides selling copies of the book? Frank may not be interested in such questions, having tried to justify himself by his “honesty.” But, as Proverbs says, “Sin is not ended by multiplying words, but the prudent hold their tongues” (10:19). Being honest need not mean saying everything you know to be true, especially if it ends up being little more than gossip, which Paul identifies as a serious sin (2 Corinthians 12:20; see also Proverbs 11:13; 16:28). Frank does not honor his parents (Exodus 20:12) through these exposures. However, he is serving an audience he has built up through his three autobiographical novels, who have been wondering, “How much in these stories is true?”

Two Lessons
Nonetheless, and in spite of my skepticism that Frank is even reporting the truth, there are some lessons to be learned. First, while Francis and Edith Schaeffer never presented themselves as saints or L’Abri as perfect, some of us had a tendency to romanticize it all a bit. Frank shows some of the pain and struggles that went on behind the scenes. I am struck by how hard Francis and Edith worked and the toll it took on them, particularly Francis. Apparently, the man was an introvert who suffered greatly by not having enough time to himself, and so became depressed and angry much of the time. It seems that the Schaeffers overworked themselves, not adequately resting one day a week (something encouraged by the Reformed faith, given its high view of the fourth commandment). That should be a lesson to all of us.

Second, while I find historic Christianity to be true, rational, and pertinent to all of life (a conviction significantly shaped by reading and rereading the elder Schaeffer’s corpus), I agree with many of Frank’s complaints about evangelicalism. In fact, some of them were given in Francis Schaeffer’s last book, The Great Evangelical Disaster (1984). Frank’s points have been made by others and made more cogently, but they are, nevertheless, true. Frank puts much of his complaint into one scorching paragraph:

I think my problem with remaining an evangelical centered on what the evangelical community became. It was the merging of the entertainment business with faith, the flippant lightweight kitsch ugliness of American Christianity, the sheer stupidity, the paranoia of the American right-wing enterprise, the platitudes    married to pop culture, all of it . . . that made me crazy. It was just too stupid for words (389).

On a bad day, I can sound much the same (as my wife and my students will attest). Yet one of the more salient mottos of the Reformation must be invoked: “a reformed church always reforming.” Evangelicalism — if that word retains any meaning — should reform, repent, and seek renewal. We should become more critical of popular culture, more reflective, more biblical, and more worshipful. There is no need to abandon historic, biblical Protestantism as a worldview in order to accomplish these things. This is a rich, deep, and rational tradition, rooted in divine revelation itself. As Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:68-69).

Oz Guinness? 
While Frank can turn a good sentence and is generally a clear, sometimes humorous, and interesting writer, he is often intellectually petulant. For example, he refers to Os Guinness (whose first name is inexplicably spelled Oz, as in the Wizard of) as a “Schaeffer clone.” While Guinness began his ministry at L’Abri at the feet of Schaeffer, and the imprint of Schaeffer can be found in Guinness’s work, he is very much his own man and has transcended Schaeffer as a writer, scholar, and speaker. I have heard lectures by Guinness while he was a L’Abri worker, and they do not reveal anything of a “Schaeffer clone.” While Francis Schaeffer’s doctorate was honorary, Guinness earned his in social science from Oxford.

Frank’s glibness is further found in odd comments that amount to little more than non sequiturs. He inexplicably claims that belief in biblical inerrancy stifles Bible study. The opposite is true. If one is committed to Scripture as objectively true, one is inclined to pursue the proper interpretation and to reconcile apparent problems within a text, between texts, or between the claim of a text and what is known through science or history.

Although Frank claims that he influenced his reluctant father to embrace the pro-life cause, he now has second thoughts on the matter, believing that young fetuses are not sufficiently developed to have a legal right to life equal to adults or to more developed fetuses. This means he believes that some circumstance — apart from protecting the life of the mother — warrant abortions, although he does not support abortion on demand. Just as Frank was impetuous in his previous pro-life views (jolted into the position through his awed response to the birth of his first child), so his less consistent view is asserted without any genuine argument. Fetuses are every bit as human as anyone, and ranking human value by stage of development is both unbiblical and socially dangerous.

‘Maybe There Is a God …’
At the very end of the book, Frank recounts a touching moment of when his eldest daughter presented her own daughter to Frank. He writes, “Perhaps Mom and Dad were right. In an infinite universe, everything must have happened at least once, someplace, sometime. So maybe there is a God who forgives, who loves, who knows. I hope so.” This statement is so bizarre that it is hard to know where to begin.

Edith and Francis Schaeffer never taught that the universe is infinite, nor is this taught in the Bible or in any historic Christian creed or confession. Only God is infinite — that is, eternal and unlimited in goodness and power. Francis often referred to God in philosophical language as “infinite-personal” or “personal-infinite.” He would use both phrases equally, since both the personality and infinitude of God should be equally stressed.  

Furthermore, the idea of an infinite universe does not in itself give any genuine, objective meaning to life. Without God, all facts are brute facts, which are, in the words of atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell, “just there” without any forethought or destiny. Chance and necessity — no matter how much time given, no matter how much space allowed — cannot smelt meaning from a meaningless universe.

Or is Frank saying that an infinite universe somehow allows for a God? But that would be to confuse the Creator with the creation — the error of pantheism, or what Francis called pan-everything-ism in He Is There, and He Is Not Silent (1972). I could go on, but perhaps Frank is merely waxing poetic — or trying to do so. Even so, good poetry can be bad philosophy; and bad philosophy is good for nothing (Colossians 2:8).

This memoir is about the life of Frank Schaeffer, but the photograph on the cover shows a young Francis Schaeffer and his infant daughter, Priscilla. Frank is nowhere in view. It is hard to know what this means, but it seems likely that Frank is both playing on the fame of his father (and mother) and separating himself from them. One can only hope that in so doing, he has not separated himself from God himself, as well.

Related articles
What Can We Learn From Francis Schaeffer?, by Ranald Macaulay
Francis Schaeffer: A Student’s Appreciation of a Distinct Approach, by Rick Pearcey
Frank Schaeffer, Mother, and Monkey Blood, by Rick Pearcey
Groothuis Reviews “Crazy for God” at “The Pearcey Report,” by Rick Pearcey, at Pro-Existence, blog of The Pearcey Report

_______________
Douglas Groothuis is professor of philosophy at Denver Seminary. He is author of Truth Decay and several other titles. Copyright Douglas Groothuis, 2007.

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back, but what I did not expect was the number of people on this liberal blog that now take the pro-life point of view. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline Republican.

On 2-28-13 I posted this on the Ark Times Blog:

Anything the government can do to limit abortion is a good thing.

The person using the username “Liberal Republican” wrote:

I am a liberal Republican who supports gay marriage, opposes huge tax cuts for the wealthy, and opposes cuts in basic services for poor people. Having said that abortion is one of the main reasons that I stay in the Republican Party. I firmly believe that any nation that chooses to allow their unborn children to be killed so women can have a “Choice” are no better than the Nazi’s. I am disgusted by the caviler way that you talk about life and how self centered you are about your own selfish desires.

Another pro-life stepped forward when Stephen Anthony Lafferty wrote:

Prayer and good intentions have helped pass a bill that make me more comfortable.

Indian Vedic philosophy teaches that the body is infused with a soul at the 120th day of pregnancy. This bill protects life starting at the 140th day (20th week).

“It is a great poverty to kill an unborn child so you may live as you wish.” ~ Mother Teresa of Calcutta, India

Because sometimes the truth is worth repeating.

Arhogfan501 commented:

Time has come for people to start taking personal responsibility for their sex lives. Use a condom or pop a pill. The days of selfish, recreational abortions are coming to an end. Two choices. Take responsibility for the baby you produced or adoption.

_________

I couldn’t agree more with these last three bloggers concerning their respect for the rights of the unborn children in the USA to be born.

Francis Schaeffer: 25 years after

Two books examine Schaeffer and his influence

By David Daniels  |  ChristianWeek Columnist

Two books published in time for the 25-year anniversary of the death of Francis Schaeffer remind us of the profound influence he left on 20th-century evangelicalism–an influence evident in the work of many privileged to sit under his teaching.

Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life (Crossway Books, 2008), by Colin Duriez, is a full-length biography. Duriez studied for several months with Schaeffer prior to studying English and philosophy at the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland.

Duriez tracks Schaeffer’s life from his humble working-class home in Germantown, Pennsylvania, through his conversion and call to pastoral ministry within separatist fundamentalism. He follows the broadening of Schaeffer’s ministry base through the work of L’Abri, his crisis of faith and his subsequent return to America where he became a key figure in the social issues of his day.

Duriez portrays a man wholly committed to God with a passion to show that Christianity is a thoroughly reasonable faith.

In his preface, Duriez comments on the recent publication of Crazy for God (Da Capo Press, 2007), the “confessional memoir” of Frank Schaeffer, son of Francis and Edith Schaeffer. He challenges Frank’s portrayal of his father’s “façade of conviction about his faith.” Duriez contends that Francis Schaeffer “did not divorce his inner and public life.”

Os Guiness and others concur, having publicly refuted Frank Schaeffer’s harsh assessment of his own father.
In addition to extensive interviews with those who knew Francis Schaeffer well, Duriez enjoyed full access to Edith’s Schaeffer’s family records, L’Abri history and unpublished family letters. The inclusion of 28 pictures provides a welcome visual to a gripping story of an authentic life lived for God’s glory. The book concludes with an interview Duriez conducted with Francis Schaeffer on September 30, 1980.

If you are familiar with his writings, you will enjoy this finely crafted biography that Alister E. McGrath says effectively mingles “personal memories and theological analysis.”

An absorbing portrait

Francis Schaeffer and the Shaping of Evangelical America (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008), by Barry Hankins, professor of history at Baylor University, is an absorbing study of Schaeffer providing valuable insight into how he was perceived by other intellectual Christians then and now.

Hankins paints a sympathetic picture of a man who did not always get it right.

While Hankins records significant life events in the Schaeffer family, the heart of this study is a critical analysis of Schaeffer’s work. Tracing Schaeffer’s beginnings as a pastor in America, Hankins skillfully maps the gradual move from American fundamentalist bent on finding every vestige of doctrinal compromise, to European evangelical intent on equipping Christians to effectively engage the cultural questions of their day, to social crusader calling America’s evangelicals to rise up and reclaim Christian America.

Hankins rightly observes that, had Schaeffer not moved to Europe, he would likely have remained an unknown pastor mired in the swamp of separationist fundamentalism (my term, not Hankins’).

In God’s providence, Schaeffer’s move to Europe–a move aimed at organizing continental fundamentalists and conducting child evangelism, drew him into contact with men like Hans Rookmaker–a friendship that encouraged Schaeffer’s move toward exploring Christianity’s interface with culture. It was a move that catapulted Schaeffer into an international ministry of helping young Christians wrestle through their philosophical questions about God and truth.

Hankins organizes Schaeffer’s work into three broad categories: his fundamentalist beginnings in America, his broadening evangelicalism and engagement with culture in Europe, and his return to America with its subsequent return to a strident fundamentalist engagement with the social questions of the day. Whatever one’s view of Schaeffer’s work, he profoundly influenced the way evangelicalism relates to the world around it.

Hankins notes that much of Schaeffer’s writing does not readily address the cultural questions of today, but observes that Schaeffer understood his own times, learning how to effectively capture a generation for Christianity.

Whereas Duriez was afforded liberal access to the Schaeffer family and papers, Hankins notes that “members of the Schaeffer family were unwilling to be interviewed” for his book. He does not tell us why. Despite this restriction, Hankins has provided a thoroughly satisfying study of the man who, perhaps more than any other, was used by God to bring evangelicals into the public square.

Read together, these books provide a complete account of the man behind the books, lectures and films, providing a valuable assessment of his continuing impact on evangelical Christianity. I highly recommend them both.

David Daniels is book reviews coordinator for ChristianWeek and directs the work of New Covenant House at the Toronto Jewish Mission.

I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the video below. It is very valuable information for Christians to have.  Actually I have included a video below that includes comments from him on this subject.

In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented  against abortion (Episode 1),  infanticide (Episode 2),   euthenasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close look at the truth claims of the Bible. 

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 3) DEATH BY SOMEONE’S CHOICE

Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis

Good pro-life cartoon below:

Dr. C. Everett Koop pictured above.

__________