Tag Archives: michele bachmann

Responding to Oppenneimer and Lizza:Defending Francis Schaeffer’s influence on believers such as Michele Bachmann(Part 6)

September 8, 2011 – 2:56 pm

Both Oppenneimer and Lizza have attacked Francis Schaeffer’s view, but the way to know his views best is to take time to watch his film series. I said that in my first post and I will continue to show all ten episodes of his film series “How should we then live?”

This is a series of posts concerning presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and her religious beliefs. Particularly I will be looking at the identity of Francis Schaeffer who Michele said had major impact on her views. I also would say that Francis Schaeffer was the greatest christian philosopher of the 20th century.

In 1979 I first watched the film series “How should we then live?” and it was so impressive to me that I returned to my high school with permission from my former teacher to view the series again. In fact, Mr. Brink would tell the seniors at Evangelical Christian School in  Cordova, TN something to this affect: “I hope you realize how important this film series by Dr. Francis Schaeffer is. Here we have Everette Hatcher who is in college now, but he is coming back to see this film again because he knows how valuable it is.”

The best way to understand Michele Bachmann’s worldview is to watch the film series “How should we then live?” by Francis Schaeffer. I have provided a 30 minute episode at the end of this post with a written outline.  In this film series the humanist worldview is seen as weak because it is not able to give adequate answers to life’s tough questions while the christian worldview can.  Humanism has a finite base because it is limited to finite man while the Christian worldview is based on information provided by the infinite-personal God of the Bible.

__________________________________________

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey
I often tease my friend who will run for president some day that our friendship will end up costing him dearly. Reporters will dig up our connection and will explain what a freak I am and how that disqualifies him to be president. That’s kind of how it goes now if you run for office, apparently, no matter where you fall politically.

We see this kind of guilt by association throughout a new piece on Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) from The New Yorker, a much talked-about profile that includes some bizarre connections and strange inferences.

Apparently this is the week for targeting Bachmann, as there is much talk about the notorious Newseek cover, which we’ll deal with in a later post. Some of you may resonate with Slate’s Jessica Grose when she says, “I hate it when Michele Bachmann makes me defend her,” but hold on to your hats for a Leblancian edit (bolded phrases are my own) of the religion-related parts of New Yorker’s smear by Ryan Lizza.

Bachmann belongs to a generation of Christian conservatives whose views have been shaped by institutions, tracts, and leaders not commonly known to secular Americans, or even to most Christians.

Oh really? What’s his basis for this claim?

Her campaign is going to be a conversation about a set of beliefs more extreme than those of any American politician of her stature, including Sarah Palin, to whom she is inevitably compared. Bachmann said in 2004 that being gay is “personal enslavement,” and that, if same-sex marriage were legalized, “little children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal and natural and that perhaps they should try it.”

Bachmann wasn’t the first to consider sin enslavement, even if you might agree or disagree with her interpretation. How does Lizza know that her campaign will be focus on a set of beliefs? Is the media making this the focus?

…The trip [to Israel] gave her a connection to Israel, a state whose creation, many American evangelicals believe, is prophesied in the Bible. (St. Paul, in the Letter to the Romans, says that Jews will one day gather again in their homeland; modern fundamentalists see this, along with the coming of the Antichrist, as presaging the Rapture.)

Who are modern fundamentalists and what do they have to do with Bachmann? Is there any evidence that Bachmann holds the idea of pretribulation, midtribulation, or posttribulation rapture? Or maybe she’s postmillennial or even amillennial.

These ideas get complex, so things get muddy while trying to summarize an entire belief system on eschatology in a paragraph when the reporter doesn’t offer evidence for those beliefs.

In the fall of 1975, Bachmann enrolled at Winona State University, a small school in southeastern Minnesota, where she became more devout and tried to lead her dormmates to Christianity.

Regular readers know we hate the d-word. And, of course, part of being an evangelical often means evangelism, so this isn’t exactly breaking news or terribly unusual.

Then the reporter examines the beliefs of the late Francis Schaeffer, who was kind of a big deal for many evangelicals. Now, Bachmann has said before that Schaeffer has strongly influenced her views, so the association here makes sense. What’s strange is how the reporter portrays him as fringe. Here’s the reporter’s explanation for part of a video Schaeffer produced.

In the sixth episode, a mysterious man in a fake mustache drives around in a white van and furtively pours chemicals into a city’s water supply, while Schaeffer speculates about the possibility that the U.S. government is controlling its citizens by means of psychotropic drugs.

How much of that video consisted of speculation? Is there any indication that Bachmann holds this belief?

Lizza uses Schaeffer’s son Frank to explain his father’s beliefs, but he should at least acknowledge that Frank has also taken his own ideological shift. For example, Frank recently blamed the shootings in Norway on conservative evangelicals and warns that evangelicals could be planning similar attacks in the U.S. Hmm.

In 1981, three years before he died, Schaeffer published “A Christian Manifesto,” a guide for Christian activism, in which he argues for the violent overthrow of the government if Roe v. Wade isn’t reversed.

I’ll defer to Ben Domenech.

… I find this depiction of Schaeffer’s position is just a vicious smear.

What Schaeffer called for were acts of civil disobedience if Roe v. Wade was not overturned. He repeatedly and specifically stressed that violence was not justified – “overreaction can too easily become the ugly horror of sheer violence”, he wrote.

Oops. You don’t have to agree with Schaeffer to wonder whether he is unfairly maligned in this piece. The reporter then jumps to Bachmann time at Oral Roberts’ former law school.

For several years, the school could not get accreditation, because students were required to sign a “code of honor” attesting to their Christian belief and commitment.

Does anyone know whether this is really the reason why the school couldn’t get accredited? This surprises me, considering that lots and lots of colleges that have variations on a religious “code of honor” are accredited (BYU anyone?).

The law review published essays by Schaeffer and Rousas John Rushdoony, a prominent Dominionist who has called for a pure Christian theocracy in which Old Testament law—execution for adulterers and homosexuals, for example—would be instituted.

Here are more attempts to prove guilt by association. I’m guess that, for example, our friend Mr. Brad Greenberg does not believe everything a professors who write for a law review from UCLA produces, but maybe he does. Did the law review publish essays calling to execute homosexuals and adulterers? Did she believe these claims in any way?

Lizza quotes professor John Eidsmoe whom Bachmann worked for at Oral Roberts (ORU).

When I asked him if he believed that Bachmann’s views were fully consistent with the prevailing ideology at O.R.U. and the themes of his book, he said, “Yes.” Later, he added, “I do not know of any way in which they are not.”

That’s a pretty generic question he’s answering. It doesn’t get into if she believes in criminalizing adultery or homosexuality, which seems to insinuate. Then Lizza touches on Bachmann’s foster parenting.

Bachmann’s motivation seems to have been to save the girls, in the same way that she had been saved.

Again, not terribly shocking for a Christian foster parent, but even if this was her motivation, how she did this would be more relevant. Is there any evidence that she coerced the children in any way?

In the late nineteen-nineties, William Cooper, a wealthy bank executive and conservative activist, became chairman of the Minnesota Republican Party, and started to demand more ideological purity. “He began a purge of people like me,” Laidig said. “No abortion, so if your daughter is raped or if you find out your child is going to be permanently a vegetable you have the kid. Not every abortion is birth control, O.K.? So really hard-core stuff.”

Maybe he did, but did this Republican leader really want to “purge” people that supported abortion in cases of rape and if child is a permanent “vegetable?” How does this apply to Bachmann?

Here’s another journalist using guilt by association with a very tenuous basis on reality to take shots. I could go on and on about the problems in the piece and how it could have been improved, but for now, we’ll ponder why these sections weren’t edited more thoroughly.

Pieces like this do little to illuminate Bachmann’s beliefs or how they apply to her policy stances, but NPR doesn’t mind highlighting it (audio will be available later today). Better watch out who you’re friending on Facebook. You never know what they said 20 years ago that will come back to haunt you in your next job interview.

Written by: Sarah Pulliam Bailey on August 9, 2011

I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in Modern Science. A. Change in conviction from earlier modern scientists.B. From an open to a closed natural system: elimination of belief in a Creator.1. Closed system derives not from the findings of science but from philosophy.2. Now there is no place for the significance of Man, for morals, or for love.C. Darwin taught that all life evolved through the survival of the fittest.1. Serious problems inherent in Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism.

This is probably one of the most important episodes in the series.

The Scientific Age

Uploaded by  on Oct 3, 2011

T h e

SCIENTIFIC AGE

I. Church Attacks on Copernican Science Were Philosophical

Galileo’s and Copernicus’ works did not contradict the Bible but the elements of Aristotle’s teaching which had entered the Church.

II. Examples of Biblical Influence

A. Pascal’s work.

1. First successful barometer; great writing of French prose.

2. Understood Man’s uniqueness: Man could contemplate, and Man had value to God.

B. Newton

1. Speed of sound and gravity.

2. For Newton and the other early scientists, no problem concerning the why, because they began with the existence of a personal God who had created the universe.

C. Francis Bacon

1. Stressed careful observation and systematic collection of information.

2. Bacon and the other early scientists took the Bible seriously, including its teaching concerning history and the cosmos.

D. Faraday

1. Crowning discovery was the induction of the electric current.

2. As a Christian, believed God’s Creation is for all men to understand and enjoy, not just for a scientific elite.

_______________

Francis Schaeffer- How Should We Then Live? -6- The Scientific Age

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY0e-_jvWg8

III. Scientific Aspects of Biblical Influence

A. Oppenheimer and Whitehead: biblical foundations of scientific revolution.

B. Not all early scientists individually Christian, but all lived within Christian thought forms. This gave a base for science to continue and develop.

C. The contrast between Christian-based science and Chinese and Arab science.

D. Christian emphasis on an ordered Creation reflects nature of reality and is therefore acted upon in all cultures, regardless of what they say their world view is.

1. Einstein’s theory of relativity does not imply relative universe.

2. Man acts on assumption of order, whether he likes it or not.

3. Master idea of biblical science.

a) Uniformity of natural causes in an open system: cause and effect works, but God and Man not trapped in a process.

b) All that exists is not a total cosmic machine.

c) Human choices therefore have meaning and effect.

d) The cosmic machine and the machines people make therefore not a threat.

IV. Shift in Modern Science

A. Change in conviction from earlier modern scientists.

B. From an open to a closed natural system: elimination of belief in a Creator.

1. Closed system derives not from the findings of science but from philosophy.

2. Now there is no place for the significance of Man, for morals, or for love.

C. Darwin taught that all life evolved through the survival of the fittest.

1. Serious problems inherent in Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism.

2. Extension of natural selection to society, politics and ethnics.

D. Natural selection and Nazi ideology.

E. The new authoritarianism: not the crudely dictatorial regimes of Hitler and Stalin. New regimes will be subtly manipulative, based on sophisticated arsenal of new techniques now available.

1. To obtain organs for transplants forces acceptance of new definition of death. Possible abuses.

2. Without the absolute line which Christianity gives of the total uniqueness of Man, people have no boundary line between what they can do and what they should do.

3. Moral and legal implications of Artificial Insemination by Donor (A.I.D.)

4. Skinner’s social psychology and the abolition of Man.

5. Tell people they are machines and they will tend to act accordingly.

6. Each theory of conditioning leads to social application.

a) Koestler: tranquilizer to cure human aggression.

b) Clark and Lee: controlling aggressions of politicians.

c) Kranty: control reproduction through the water supply.

7. Who controls the controllers? —The unasked question.

a) The basic question begged: the psycho-civilizer as King?

b) If people are machines, why should biological continuation have value?

V. Need to Reaffirm That  Which Was the Original Base for Modern Science

Questions

1. Explain the important contributions to science made by biblical principles.

2. How should our knowledge of the biblical view of work and nature affect our own attitudes to research, study of the Bible, and the use of our minds?

3. Does this segment help you to understand how and why men of great intellectual refinement in Nazi Germany could accept what was going on?

4. “Without the absolute line which Christianity gives of the total uniqueness of Man, people have no boundary line between what they can do and what they should do.” Discuss.

Key Events and Persons

Copernicus: 1475-1543

Francis Bacon: 1561-1626

Novum Organum Scientiarum: 1620

Galileo: 1564-1642

Pascal: 1623-1662

Isaac Newton: 1642-1727

Principia Mathematica: 1687

Michael Faraday: 1791-1867

Charles Darwin: 1809-1882

Origin of Species: 1859

Herbert Spencer: 1820-1903

Albert Einstein: 1879-1955

Russel Lee: 1895-

Heinrich Himmler: 1900-1945

B.F. Skinner: 1904-1990

Arthur Koestler: 1905-

Kenneth B. Clark: 1914-

Murray Eden: 1920-

Kermit Kranty: 1923-

Skinner’s Beyond Freedom and Dignity: 1971

Further Study

Robin Briggs, ed., The Scientific Revolution of the Seventeenth Century (1969).

E.A. Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science (1932).

Arthur Koestler, The Watershed. A Biography of Johannes Kepler (1960).

Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (1967).

C.S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength (1945).

C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (1972).

D.M. Mackay, The Clockwork Image (1974).

Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution. Wistar Symposium

Monograph, no. 5 (1967).

B.F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971).

Related Posts:

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices”

E P I S O D E 1 0 How Should We Then Live 10#1 FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be led by an elite: John Kenneth […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”

E P I S O D E 9 How Should We Then Live 9#1 T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads to Pessimism Regarding a Meaning for Life and for Fixed […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation”

E P I S O D E 8 How Should We Then Live 8#1 I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, Degas) and Post-Impressionism (Cézanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason”

E P I S O D E 7 How Should We Then Live 7#1 I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act on his belief that we live […]

Taking up for Francis Schaeffer’s book Christian Manifesto

I have made it clear from day one when I started this blog that Francis Schaeffer, Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan and Adrian Rogers had been the biggest influences on my political and religious views. Today I am responding to an unfair attack on Francis Schaeffer’s book “A Christian Manifesto.” As you can see on the […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age”

E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in Modern Science. A. Change in conviction from earlier modern scientists.B. From an open to a closed natural system: […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age”

E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live 5-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement. A. […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation”

How Should We Then Live 4-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to how to be right with […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

How Should We Then Live 3-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so many problems today with this excellent episode. He noted, “Could have gone either way—with emphasis on real people living in […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages”

How Should We Then Live 2-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard to authority and the approach to God.” […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age”

How Should We Then Live 1-1 Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why it fell. It fell because of inward [..

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Also tagged , , , | Comments (0)

Brummett: Obama would defeat Rick Perry (Part 1)

September 6, 2011 – 8:17 am

Cato Institute Scholars Analyze the 2010 State of the Union Address

Uploaded by on Jan 28, 2010

Cato Institute scholars address several items in President Obama’s first official State of the Union Address. Scholars include Daniel J. Mitchell, Mark A. Calabria, Neal McCluskey, Michael D. Tanner, John Samples, Jim Harper and Malou Innocent. http://www.cato.org

_________________________________

__

John Brummett suggests that Rick Perry could not beat President Obama in his re-election attempt in 2012. In Brummett’s article “Laboring over holiday arrows,” September 6, 2011, Arkansas News Bureau, he asserted:

President Obama— You cannot get re-elected in an economy like this unless the Republicans nominate someone more unsettling even than the economy, a possibility.

arrowdownsmallRick Perry, Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann — The possibilities mentioned above

I will respond in 6 parts. These 6 parts all deal with fundemental economic disagreements that President Obama and Rick Perry disagree on, and I will you determine if the public agrees with Perry or Obama.

These observations come from an article I read by Bradley Gitz on Sept 4, 2011 in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette:

Much is being made of Texas Gov. (and now GOP frontrunner) Rick Perry’s “Texas Miracle.” Conservatives favorably compare Texas’ economic performance with the rest of the nation under Barack Obama. Liberals claim the “miracle” really isn’t much of a miracle at all and that Perry shouldn’t get the credit even if it is.
   Both sides have a point. By any objective standard, Texas has done pretty well in recent years, although upon closer inspection it still has problems (like any state) and it remains unclear how much of the good stuff can be attributed to Perry’s policies.
   In clarifying all this, it might help to remember that government is necessary for economic development but, past a certain point, is a potential obstacle to it. The logical corollary is that the marketplace is generally self-correcting, unless presidents (and governors) do dumb things that prevent such corrections. Sound economic policy more often than not means government laying the right foundation for economic growth and then getting out of the way.
   So what would such a “right” foundation under present circumstances consist of?
   First, limiting the size of the welfare state and government spending in general. Much easier than figuring out the right policies is identifying the wrong ones, foremost among which is government spending more each year than it takes in. At this point we have no choice but to overhaul entitlements, drastically cut discretionary spending and hope we have learned to never go down this road again…
   
   That the Obama administration doesn’t like most of these ideas explains certain things, and also suggests a rather obvious ninth step the voters can take in November of 2012.
   —–––––
•–––––—
   Freelance columnist Bradley R. Gitz, who lives and teaches in Batesville, received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama | Also tagged , , , | Comments (0)

2012 Presidential Republican Primary Debate In Iowa pt.9

September 4, 2011 – 9:55 am

2012 Presidential Republican Primary Debate In Iowa pt.9

JOHN PODHORETZ comments on the Republican debate below:

Republican debate: Time to get real

By JOHN PODHORETZ

Last Updated: 8:28 AM, August 12, 2011

Posted: 1:55 AM, August 12, 2011

Last night’s Fox News-Washington Examiner debate in Iowa was the most sheerly entertaining political event in decades — a rapid-fire, no-holds-barred multiplayer smackdown with the toughest set of questions ever posed to presidential candidates.The Republicans were challenged as candidates rarely are challenged, and by two journalistic organizations generally considered friendly to the GOP.The questioning was so sharp that Newt Gingrich was reduced to complaining about having to explain two contradictory quotes about Libya because Fox hadn’t included a third quote of his.Indeed, the debate ranged so widely and so quickly that several candidates rose and fell in the course of it.Take the breakout star of the first two debates, Michele Bachmann.She saw an opening when she was attacked by her fellow Minnesotan, ex-Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and proceeded to chew up him and spit him out.Advantage Bachmann.

But then she chewed on him and chewed on him and began looking mean.

Ten points taken from Bachmann.

Then she was asked a real doozy by Byron York of the Examiner about whether she actually believed a woman should “submit” to her husband — a view she has promulgated in the past — and answered quietly and with a profession of love and respect for her husband. Bachmann was back!

Then, 10 minutes later, she gave an answer on her opposition to raising the debt ceiling so incoherent that even those inclined to support her view must have been baffled and confused.

She claimed the Standard and Poor’s downgrade supported her view when S&P actually said the very fact that the need for a debt-ceiling increase had been in dispute helped cause the downgrade. Bad Bachmann.

Charting her performance in the debate would be like charting the Dow over the last week. Volatile would be the word for it, and volatility is not what Republicans are looking for in a candidate.

As for Pawlenty, rarely has a fluent and well-prepared candidate with a solid record of accomplishment and an ability to think and argue on his feet proved so . . . meh. His candidacy is a wet match, and last night probably marked its end.

Utah ex-Gov. Jon Huntsman’s baffling decision to run for president proved even more baffling when he began the debate by admitting he didn’t have an economic plan ready yet. Throughout, he looked as though he was in the middle of one of those school-anxiety dreams where you’re got to take a final exam on material you’ve never studied.

And then there was Rep. Ron Paul, who said it was fine with him if Iran got nukes and there should be no Federal Reserve Board and America should get off everybody’s lawn. His major combatant was ex-Sen. Rick Santorum, and the two of them sparred and scuffled for no particularly good reason, as neither of them has any business pretending he might be president.

What Republicans nationally are looking for in a candidate is someone who can win next year. And yet again, there was no question that the only plausible candidate on the stage fitting the description was Mitt Romney.

Romney is a weak frontrunner for all kinds of reasons, but standing on a stage next to seven other people who have no chance of being president, he looks like a Colossus.

So he won. Again. But his performance was sufficiently unmemorable that he is clearly vulnerable to a strong showing by the incoming Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Or just about anybody else serious who might want to get in.

This is a race Republicans can win. There’s still time. Romney’s got problems. Perry’s far from perfect. The next debate should be one that isn’t just fun, but that actually features a genuine argument between two or three people who might actually be president.

jpodhoretz@gmail.com

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Also tagged , , , | Comments (0)

Responding to Oppenneimer and Lizza:Defending Francis Schaeffer’s influence on believers such as Michele Bachmann(Part 5)

September 1, 2011 – 9:19 am

Both Oppenneimer and Lizza (also BlueArkansas Blog) have attacked Francis Schaeffer’s view, but the way to know his views best is to take time to watch his film series. I said that in my first post and I will continue to show all ten episodes of his film series “How should we then live?”

Here are few of my earlier posts:

Responding to Oppenneimer and Lizza:Defending Francis Schaeffer’s influence on believers such as Michele Bachmann(Part 4)

 

Responding to Oppenneimer and Lizza:Defending Francis Schaeffer’s influence on believers such as Michele Bachmann(Part 2)

Responding to Oppenneimer and Lizza:Defending Francis Schaeffer’s influence on believers such as Michele Bachmann(Part 1), August 20, 2011 – 8:23 pm

This is a series of posts concerning presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and her religious beliefs. Particularly I will be looking at the identity of Francis Schaeffer who Michele said had major impact on her views. I also would say that Francis Schaeffer was the greatest christian philosopher of the 20th century.

In 1979 I first watched the film series “How should we then live?” and it was so impressive to me that I returned to my high school with permission from my former teacher to view the series again. In fact, Mr. Brink would tell the seniors at Evangelical Christian School in  Cordova, TN something to this affect: “I hope you realize how important this film series by Dr. Francis Schaeffer is. Here we have Everette Hatcher who is in college now, but he is coming back to see this film again because he knows how valuable it is.”

The best way to understand Michele Bachmann’s worldview is to watch the film series “How should we then live?” by Francis Schaeffer. I have provided a 30 minute episode at the end of this post with a written outline.  In this film series the humanist worldview is seen as weak because it is not able to give adequate answers to life’s tough questions while the christian worldview can.  Humanism has a finite base because it is limited to finite man while the Christian worldview is based on information provided by the infinite-personal God of the Bible.

__________________________

The New Yorker Smears Francis Schaeffer and Michele Bachmann August 11, 2011 by John Scotus

In a recent hatchet job on Michele Bachmann, New Yorker reporter Ryan Lizza was so eager to smear Bachmann that he smeared Francis Schaeffer as well.

I do not know enough about Bachmann to respond to the bulk of the article about her. However I know enough about editing and writing to know that Lizza did not really have a story, so he just started pulling stuff out of thin air in order to meet the required word count for the article.

Apparently, the Bachmann’s watched Schaeffer’s film series How Should We then Live? in the late 1970s. This in turn causes Lizza to churn out more than 1200 words about Schaeffer, all of which can best be characterized as a complete misrepresentation of Schaeffer’s work and views. He makes Schaeffer out to be some right-wing, crazy, Christian fanatic out to take over the government, install a Christian theocracy, and poison the populace with his outlandish views. Since Schaeffer was a fairly mainstream evangelical, in effect, by slandering Schaeffer, Lizza is slandering the vast majority of theologically conservative Christians in the US, but he seems unaware of this fact. Further, Lizza is unable to provide any link between Bachmann and Schaeffer, except for Bachmann’s statement that Schaeffer’s film was an influence to her.

Funny. In the mid-1970s, I saw the movie Jaws and it influenced my views on some issues (film, ocean swimming, etc.). If Lizza were writing my profile, he would no doubt use more than 1200 words to misrepresent the content of the film (“bloodthirsty sheriff, brain-addled fisherman, and deluded marine biologist persecute and kill harmless fish, breaking numerous laws in the process”), to ruminate about the dangers of the sea (“the ocean is very dangerous for sharks, as crazy people want to kill them”), and to talk about how people had become afraid of sharks (“Saturday Night Live once did a skit called ‘Land shark’, proving how paranoid even America’s elite had become because of this vile film about this benign yet beautiful sea creature”).  Yet, none of this would be the least bit relevant to me or my life. There is no story there.

Bachmann watching a film series in 1979 is certainly no justification for more than 1200 words of prose. A true journalist would have just reported what Bachmann said, made a quick note accurately explaining who Schaeffer was, and then talked about Bachmann and her views. However, Lizza wants to tarnish Bachmann’s reputation through guilt by association with Schaeffer. Sadly for his readers, he does not provide much evidence of a Bachmann-Schaeffer link to begin with, and Schaeffer is not guilty of the crimes Lizza accuses him of.

Among other things, Lizza reports,

In 1981, three years before he died, Schaeffer published “A Christian Manifesto,” a guide for Christian activism, in which he argues for the violent overthrow of the government if Roe v. Wade isn’t reversed.

A summary of A Christian Manifesto, delivered in an address by Francis Schaeffer, can be found here. In his address, he talks of civil disobedience to the government when its dictates violate the believer’s conscience. Nowhere in his book does he ever call for violent resistance against or advocate the overthrow of the government in any way.

Francis Schaeffer was primarily interested in philosophy, culture, and apologetics, and even today he is known in theologically conservative Christian circles as one of the best modern thinkers in those areas. While Schaeffer thought that our beliefs should inform our politics and that Christians should certainly be involved in the political situation, he completely rejected the idea that the country should become a theocracy or that the wall between church and state should be torn down. Rather, Schaeffer was most interested in seeing Christians engage with their culture and society, and bring about a transformation of a country one person at a time through persuasion and the triumph of Christian ideas.

While I do not know if Bachmann is really true to the ideas of Schaeffer, if she is then she certainly rises in my esteem. Schaeffer was by no means a perfect man, but his view of how Christians should interact with society was exactly correct in my humble opinion.

Meanwhile, Ryan Lizza has proven that he is nothing but a hack reporter who has not earned his salary and who thinks lies and innuendo are a substitute for solid journalism.

(H/t Coffee & Markets)

E P I S O D E 5

How Should We Then Live 5-1

I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970’s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement. A. With Bible the ordinary citizen could say that majority was wrong. B. Tremendous freedom without chaos because Bible gives a base for law.”

Another great point that Schaeffer makes in this series is that Communism  has NEVER EXISTED WITHOUT BRINGING REPRESSION.  A few months ago a young person said to me, “I think that Marx was misunderstood and that true communism has not been  really tried yet.” I responded that there are a hand full of Communist countries today and they all have several similar conditions: NO FREEDOM OF PRESS, NO POLITICAL FREEDOM, NO FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND NO ECONOMIC FREEDOM. I noted that Schaeffer has rightly said that Communism  is basically based on materialism and a result it must fail. It does not have a Reformation base.

T h e

REVOLUTIONARY AGE

I. Bible as Absolute Base for Law

A. Paul Robert’s mural in Lausanne.

B. Rutherford’s Lex Rex  (Law Is King): Freedom without chaos; government by law rather than arbitrary government by men.

C. Impact of biblical political principles in America.

1. Rutherford’s influence on U.S. Constitution: directly through Witherspoon; indirectly through Locke’s secularized version of biblical politics.

2. Locke’s ideas inconsistent when divorced from Christianity.

3. One can be personally non-Christian, yet benefit from Christian foundations: e.g. Jefferson and other founders.

II. The Reformation and Checks and Balances

A. Humanist and Reformation views of politics contrasted.

B. Sin is reason for checks and balances in Reformed view: Calvin’s position at Geneva examined.

C. Checks and balances in Protestant lands prevented bloody resolution of tensions.

D. Elsewhere, without this biblically rooted principle, tensions had to be resolved violently.

III. Contrast Between English and French Political Experience

A. Voltaire’s admiration of English conditions.

B. Peaceful nature of the Bloodless Revolution of 1688 in England related to Reformation base.

C. Attempt to achieve political change in France on English lines, but on Enlightenment base, produced a bloodbath and a dictatorship.

1. Constructive change impossible on finite human base.

2. Declaration of Rights of Man, the rush to extremes, and the Goddess of Reason.

3. Anarchy or repression: massacres, Robespierre, the Terror.

4. Idea of perfectibility of Man maintained even during the Terror.

 

IV. Anglo-American Experience Versus Franco-Russian

A. Reformation experience of freedom without chaos contrasts with that of Marxist-Leninist Russia.

B. Logic of Marxist-Leninism.

1. Marxism not a source of freedom.

2. 1917 Revolution taken over, not begun, by Bolsheviks.

3. Logic of communism: elite dictatorship, suppression of freedoms, coercion of allies.

V. Reformation Christianity and Humanism: Fruits Compared

A. Reformation gave absolutes to counter injustices; where Christians failed they were untrue to their principles.

B. Humanism has no absolute way of determining values consistently.

C. Differences practical, not just theoretical: Christian absolutes give limited government; denial of absolutes gives arbitrary rule.

VI. Weaknesses Which Developed Later in Reformation Countries

A. Slavery and race prejudice.

1. Failure to live up to biblical belief produces cruelty.

2. Hypocritical exploitation of other races.

3. Church’s failure to speak out sufficiently against this hypocrisy.

B. Noncompassionate use of accumulated wealth.

1. Industrialism not evil in itself, but only through greed and lack of compassion.

2. Labor exploitation and gap in living standards.

3. Church’s failure to testify enough against abuses.

C. Positive face of Reformation Christianity toward social evil.

1. Christianity not the only influence on consensus.

a) Church’s silence betrayed; did not reflect what it said it believed.

b) Non-Christian influences also important at that time; and many so-called Christians were “social” Christians only.

2. Contributions of Christians to social reform.

a) Varied efforts in slave trade, prisons, factories.

(1) Wesley, Newton, Clarkson, Wilberforce, and abolition of slavery.

(2) Howard, Elizabeth Fry, and prison reforms.

(3) Lord Shaftesbury and reform in the factories.

b) Impact of Whitefield-Wesley revivals on society.

VII. Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection

But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement.

A. With Bible the ordinary citizen could say that majority was wrong.

B. Tremendous freedom without chaos because Bible gives a base for law.

Questions

1. What has been the role of biblical principles in the legal and political history of the countries studied?

2. Is it true that lands influenced by the Reformation escaped political violence because biblical concepts were acted upon?

3. What are the core distinctions, in terms of ideology and results, between English and American Revolutions on the one hand, and the French and Russian on the other hand?

4. What were the weaknesses which developed at a later date in countries which had a Reformation history?

5. Dr. Schaeffer believes that basic to action is an idea, and that the history of the West in the last two or three centuries has been marked by a humanism pressed to its tragic conclusions and by a Christianity insufficiently applied to the totality of life. How should Christians then approach participation in social and political affairs?

Key Events and Persons

Calvin: 1509-1564

Samuel Rutherford: 1600-1661

Rutherford’s Lex Rex: 1644

John Locke: 1631-1704

John Wesley: 1703-1791

Voltaire: 1694-1778

Letters on the English Nation: 1733

George Whitefield: 1714-1770

John Witherspoon: 1723-1794

John Newton: 1725-1807

John Howard: 1726-1790

Jefferson: 1743-1826

Robespierre: 1758-1794

Wilberforce: 1759-1833

Clarkson: 1760-1846

Napoleon: 1769-1821

Elizabeth Fry: 1780-1845

Declaration of Rights of Man: 1789

National Constituent Assembly: 1789-1791

Second French Revolution and Revolutionary Calendar: 1792

The Reign of Terror: 1792-1794

Lord Shaftesbury: 1801-1855

English slave trade ended: 1807

Slavery ended in Great Britain and Empire: 1833

Karl Marx: 1818-1883

Lenin: 1870-1924

Trotsky: 1879-1940

Stalin: 1879-1953

February and October Russian Revolutions: 1917

Berlin Wall: 1961

Czechoslovakian repression: 1968

Further Study

Charles Breunig, The Age of Revolution and Reaction: 1789-1850 (1970).

R.N. Carew Hunt, The Theory and Practice of Communism (1963).

Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities (1957).

Peter Gay, ed., Deism: An Anthology (1968).

John McManners, The French Revolution and the Church (1970).

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1957).

Louis L. Snyder, ed., The Age of Reason (1955).

David B. Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture (1975).

J. Kuczynski, The Rise of the Working Class (1971).

Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Dilemma (1958).

John Newton, Out of the Depths. An Autobiography.

John Wesley, Journal (1 vol. abridge).

C. Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger, Ireland, 1845-1849 (1964).

Related Posts:

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices”

E P I S O D E 1 0 How Should We Then Live 10#1 FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be led by an elite: John Kenneth […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”

E P I S O D E 9 How Should We Then Live 9#1 T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads to Pessimism Regarding a Meaning for Life and for Fixed […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation”

E P I S O D E 8 How Should We Then Live 8#1 I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, Degas) and Post-Impressionism (Cézanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason”

E P I S O D E 7 How Should We Then Live 7#1 I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act on his belief that we live […]

Taking up for Francis Schaeffer’s book Christian Manifesto

I have made it clear from day one when I started this blog that Francis Schaeffer, Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan and Adrian Rogers had been the biggest influences on my political and religious views. Today I am responding to an unfair attack on Francis Schaeffer’s book “A Christian Manifesto.” As you can see on the […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age”

E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in Modern Science. A. Change in conviction from earlier modern scientists.B. From an open to a closed natural system: […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age”

E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live 5-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement. A. […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation”

How Should We Then Live 4-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to how to be right with […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

How Should We Then Live 3-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so many problems today with this excellent episode. He noted, “Could have gone either way—with emphasis on real people living in […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages”

How Should We Then Live 2-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard to authority and the approach to God.” […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age”

How Should We Then Live 1-1 Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why it fell. It fell because of inward [..

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Also tagged , , , | Comments (0)

2012 Presidential Republican Primary Debate In Iowa pt.7

September 1, 2011 – 7:07 am

2012 Presidential Republican Primary Debate In Iowa pt.7

MAGGIE HABERMAN comments on debate below: 

Bachmann looks past Perry

By MAGGIE HABERMAN | 8/12/11 7:37 AM EDT

Molly Ball reports:

If Michele Bachmann is feeling threatened by Rick Perry’s imminent entry into the presidential race, she didn’t show it in a Friday morning interview on the “Today” show. Asked about the Texas governor, she skated right by the question and didn’t even say Perry’s name.

“Well, I’ve been in Washington, DC, now going on 5 years, and I’ve been a very consistent challenger to the unconstitutional policies of President Obama and Speaker Pelosi,” Bachmann said, going on to tick off her business and legal credentials.

“I’ve also stood up against my own party. I stood up on principle rather than party,” she added. “I’ve been bringing this voice, this movement into the halls of Congress very successfully.”

It was even less of a Perry-specific answer than she gave in last night’s debate. Unlike some of the other candidates who sought to draw a contrast with the soon-to-be-candidate, Bachmann merely joked, “I think there is room in the race for Governor Perry, Sarah Palin or even, Bret, you too.”

On “Today,” Bachmann also took — and deflected — a question about that now-infamous picture of her on the cover of Newsweek.

She listed all the recent bad news — the stock market, the credit downgrade, casualties in Afghanistan — and said, “That’s not a good week. A magazine photo is not even a factor in all that.”

As for whether she is, in fact, the “Queen of Rage”: “No, not at all. I’m a very happy person, a very optimistic person. … I love people. I really care about where people are at right now with the economy. So I want to focus on making their lives better.”

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Also tagged , , | Comments (0)

Responding to Oppenneimer and Lizza:Defending Francis Schaeffer’s influence on believers such as Michele Bachmann(Part 4)

August 24, 2011 – 2:16 pm

Both Oppenneimer and Lizza have attacked Francis Schaeffer’s view, but the way to know his views best is to take time to watch his film series. I said that in my first post and I will continue to show all ten episodes of his film series “How should we then live?”

This is a series of posts concerning presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and her religious beliefs. Particularly I will be looking at the identity of Francis Schaeffer who Michele said had major impact on her views. I also would say that Francis Schaeffer was the greatest christian philosopher of the 20th century. 

In 1979 I first watched the film series “How should we then live?” and it was so impressive to me that I returned to my high school with permission from my former teacher to view the series again. In fact, Mr. Brink would tell the seniors at Evangelical Christian School in  Cordova, TN something to this affect: “I hope you realize how important this film series by Dr. Francis Schaeffer is. Here we have Everette Hatcher who is in college now, but he is coming back to see this film again because he knows how valuable it is.”

The best way to understand Michele Bachmann’s worldview is to watch the film series “How should we then live?” by Francis Schaeffer. I have provided a 30 minute episode at the end of this post with a written outline.  In this film series the humanist worldview is seen as weak because it is not able to give adequate answers to life’s tough questions while the christian worldview can.  Humanism has a finite base because it is limited to finite man while the Christian worldview is based on information provided by the infinite-personal God of the Bible.

__________________________

Bachmann: Christian Writer Francis Schaeffer Shaped Pro-Life . Views

by Steven Ertelt | Des Moines, IA | LifeNews.com | 7/26/11 12:06 PM

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is one of the several pro-life advocates seeking the Republican nomination to face pro-abortion President Barack Obama and she cites Christian writer Francis Schaeffer as an influence on her pro-life views.

In a campaign stop to speak to local residents at a church in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Bachmann shared her testimony and talked about the Christian faith she and her husband share. That faith, which has matured thanks to the writings of Schaeffer, has led Bachman to a pro-life view that has seen her compile a 100% pro-life voting record in Congress and adopt dozens of foster children.

“One thing that Dr. Schaeffer said is that [God is] not just the God of theology. He’s not just the God of the Bible,” Bachmann said, according to the Des Moines Register. “Since he is the Creator God, he’s the father of biology, sociology, of political science, of you name the subject. … And that altered our way of thinking, that God had something to say about our career.”

“Francis Schaeffer also said that life is the watershed issue of our time, and how we come down on how we view human life will impact all other issues,” she said. “And so Marcus and I decided we didn’t want to be pro-life only, just as speaking… We wanted to live a life of being about pro-life.”

The Register indicates Bachmann told the audience that, upon the encouragement to put her pro-life views into action, she and her husband began counseling and praying with single mothers and helping them get to pregnancy and adoption centers to provide further practical support instead of abortion.

“This is not to condemn any woman who here has ever had an abortion or participated in one,” she said, according to the newspaper. “Because God is there also with grace and mercy in that situation, but to say that he is the life-giving only God who has answers in the midst of our trying times.”

Dave Andrusko, of the National Right to Life Committee, says he is not surprised Schaeffer helped shaped Bachmann’s faith and pro-life views.

“There are a couple of reasons it’s useful to talk about Congresswoman Bachmann’s talk—her testimony. Like almost all the GOP candidates current running, and most of the few who may still jump in, she is staunchly pro-life,” he says. “Schaeffer is perhaps best known to pro-life veterans for co-authoring with Dr. C. Everett Koop (later Surgeon General) the hugely influential “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” Both as a book and a video series, the impact of “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” cannot be exaggerated. It awakened and mobilized Evangelical Protestants as nothing before had ever done.”

He called the Bachmanns “loving pro-lifers” who have expressed their Christian faith and pro-life views “through the hands and feet” of action.

How Should We Then Live 4-1

I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970’s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to how to be right with God, but concerning the meaning of life and what is right and what is wrong, and concerning mankind and nature. 3. The people of the Reformation did not have humanism’s problem, because the Bible gives a unity between God—as the ultimate universal—and the individual things.” What a great difference this made in the world!!!

E P I S O D E 4

T h e

REFORMATION

I. The Reformation as a Reaction Against Medieval Religious Distortions of the Biblical and Early Christian Church’s Teaching

A. Illustration from Luther.

B. Luther—German; Zwingli—Zürich; Thomas Cromwell—England; Calvin—Geneva.

C. Biblical view of salvation (grace only) and its effect on certain aspects of church construction.

D. Real meaning of destruction of artwork in Reformation.

E. The Reformation rejected.

1. Medieval distortion of Church’s having made its authority equal to the authority of the Bible.

2. Medieval distortion of Church’s having added human works to the finished work of Christ for salvation.

3. Medieval distortion introduced by Aquinas: mixture of biblical thinking and pagan thought.

F. Summary of humanistic influence in church.

1. Illustrated by Raphael’s School of Athens and Disputà.

2. Illustrated by Michelangelo’s making pagan prophetesses equal to Old Testament prophets in Sistine Chapel.

G. For William Farel and the other Reformers it was the Scriptures only.

1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel.

2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to how to be right with God, but concerning the meaning of life and what is right and what is wrong, and concerning mankind and nature.

3. The people of the Reformation did not have humanism’s problem, because the Bible gives a unity between God—as the ultimate universal—and the individual things.

4. The Reformation was no golden age, but it did aspire to depend on the Bible in all of life.

II. The Reformation and the Arts

A. German Reformation music tradition peaks in Bach.

B. Significance of Cranach’s and Luther’s friendship.

C. Dürer’s identification with Luther evidenced in his diary; significance of his work.

D. Rembrandt’s paintings show that he understood that his sins had sent Christ to the cross, and that Christ is the Lord of all of life.

E. Point is not to romanticize Reformation art but refute view that reformation was either hostile to art and culture, or did not produce art and culture.

F.Wittenberg Gesangbuch , Geneva Psalter, and revival of congregational singing.

III. Comparison of Renaissance and Reformation.

Both sought freedom. In the South license resulted from lack of absolutes; in the North freedom lasted through absolutes.

Questions

1. Can you clearly differentiate between the key ideas of the Renaissance and the Reformation, respectively?

2. “The Reformation is simply the last gasp of medieval Christianity. Once exhausted, the truly modern and humane force of the Renaissance dominated the West.” Comment.

3. “As a man thinketh, so is he”—the renewed emphasis upon the Bible’s teaching in the Reformation had practical results. If some of these results are no longer common among us, how far may this be attributed to a de-emphasis upon biblical teaching today?

Key Events and Persons

Erasmus: c. 1466-1536

Dürer: 1471-1528

Lucas Cranach: 1472-1553

Martin Luther: 1483-1546

Farel: 1489-1565

Johann Walther: 1496-1570

Calvin: 1509-1564

Erasmus’ Greek New Testament: 1516

Luther’s 95 Thesis: 1517

Reform at Zürich: 1523

Wittenberg Gesangbuch: 1524

England breaks with Rome: 1534

Calvin’s Institutes: 1536

Geneva Psalter: 1562

Rembrandt: 1606-1669

Raising of the Cross: 1633

Bach: 1685-1750

Related Posts:

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices”

E P I S O D E 1 0 How Should We Then Live 10#1 FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be led by an elite: John Kenneth […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”

E P I S O D E 9 How Should We Then Live 9#1 T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads to Pessimism Regarding a Meaning for Life and for Fixed […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation”

E P I S O D E 8 How Should We Then Live 8#1 I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, Degas) and Post-Impressionism (Cézanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason”

E P I S O D E 7 How Should We Then Live 7#1 I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act on his belief that we live […]

Taking up for Francis Schaeffer’s book Christian Manifesto

I have made it clear from day one when I started this blog that Francis Schaeffer, Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan and Adrian Rogers had been the biggest influences on my political and religious views. Today I am responding to an unfair attack on Francis Schaeffer’s book “A Christian Manifesto.” As you can see on the […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age”

E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in Modern Science. A. Change in conviction from earlier modern scientists.B. From an open to a closed natural system: […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age”

E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live 5-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement. A. […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation”

How Should We Then Live 4-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to how to be right with […]

 

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

How Should We Then Live 3-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so many problems today with this excellent episode. He noted, “Could have gone either way—with emphasis on real people living in […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages”

How Should We Then Live 2-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard to authority and the approach to God.” […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age”

How Should We Then Live 1-1 Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why it fell. It fell because of inward [..

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Also tagged , , , | Comments (0)

Ron Paul “It’s Time We Quit This! It’s Trillions Of Dollars We’re Spending On These Wars! Debate pt6

August 24, 2011 – 1:32 pm

Ron Paul “It’s Time We Quit This! It’s Trillions Of Dollars We’re Spending On These Wars! Debate pt6

___________________________

Maggie Haberman comments on the debate below:

York defends Bachmann ‘submissive’ question

By MAGGIE HABERMAN | 8/12/11 7:42 AM EDT

The Washington Examiner’s Byron York, on the receiving end of some blowback for asking Michele Bachmann a question about what being “submissive” to her husband would mean in office, defended the line on “Fox and Friends,” POLITICO’s Jennifer Epstein says:

“Well, it’s always great to be the most popular guy in the room for a while. This is a serious and legitimate question about something she has said and believe me, if she progresses very far in the campaign process, she would have been asked this question. And I personally thought she handled it very well. It was like a very human moment for her. she had been asked earlier about it by “Newsweek”, she said simply, i’ll be the decision maker. but this, I think, gave us a much better glimpse into Michelle Bachmann.”

UPDATE: POLITICO’s Molly Ball points out that Bachmann was also asked about York’s question this morning on the “Today” show, and gave a similar answer to what she delivered in the debate. However, she incorrectly said Chris Wallace – asker of the now-famous “Are you a flake?” question – was the one who posed the query.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Also tagged , , , | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s Christian Worldview offends Ryan Lizza

August 20, 2011 – 9:36 pm

In my series on Francis Schaeffer’s film series “How should we then live?” I have pointed out that Michele Bachmann has received lots of criticism for being influenced by this radical that wanted to encourage people to overturn the government in 1981 in his book “A Christian Manifesto” according to Ryan Lizza. However, Schaeffer never did suggest that we are at the point where we should start a revolution because of abortion. In fact, Schaeffer is not a radical but is very much in the mainstream of the traditional Christian views derived from the Bible.

Take a look below at an excellent article by Nancy Pearcey and then be sure to look at the posts I doing on Bachmann and Schaeffer.

Dangerous Influences: The New Yorker, Michele Bachmann, and Me

by  Nancy Pearcey
08/12/2011

The takeaway from Ryan Lizza’s hit piece on Michele Bachmann in the New Yorker is this:  “Dominionist” is the new “Fundamentalist”—the preferred term of abuse, intended to arouse fear and contempt, and downgrade the status of targeted groups of people.

Never mind that most of those people have never heard the term—including me.  Bachmann told Lizza that a major influence on her thinking was my book Total Truth (“Bachmann told me [it] was a ‘wonderful’ book”), along with the work of Francis Schaeffer, whom I studied under.

Lizza labeled the two of us Dominionists.  Dozens of liberal websites have picked up the story and repeated the charge.

I had to Google the term to discover whether there really is such a group.

Yes, there is a little-known group of Christians who claim the term, though they are typically called Reconstructionists.  Apparently it was sociologist Sara Diamond who expanded Dominionism into a general term of abuse, based on a passage in Genesis where God tells humans to exercise “dominion” over the earth.

By that definition, anyone who respects Genesis as Scripture would be a Dominionist—including Jews and Catholics, as well as Evangelicals, Fundamentalists and Pentecostals.  And not a few of the American Founders.

Reductio ad absurdum.  Or so you would think.  But liberal writers have jumped on the label and are applying it to conservatives in just about all of the above groups, with a few secular conservatives thrown in.

Journalist Stanley Kurtz calls this usage of the term “conspiratorial nonsense,” “political paranoia” and ” guilt by association.”

If we’re looking for the real hermeneutical key to Michele Bachmann’s mind, surprisingly it’s right out in plain sight.  It is a term that appears several times in Lizza’s piece, though he ignores it.

The term is worldview.

A major theme in my writings and Schaeffer’s is that Christianity is a worldview.  That means it is not reducible to a set of privatized religious rituals and practices.  Instead it offers a coherent, rationally consistent intellectual framework for all of life.

Schaeffer spent most of his adult life in Europe, and his concept of worldview owes much to Dutch thinkers Abraham Kuyper and Herman Dooyeweerd.  Kuyper was prime minister of the Netherlands in the early 20th century and founder of the Free University of Amsterdam.  Dooyeweerd was a systematic philosopher who taught there.

They adopted the concept of worldview from Continental philosophy.  It is a translation of the German term Weltanschauung, which expresses the Hegelian notion that any given society shares a common outlook, a Zeitgeist or spirit of the age.

The implication is that a society’s cultural artifacts—its laws, customs, morality, art, politics—all express that shared spirit or common outlook.

For Kuyper and Dooyeweerd, this holistic concept of worldview did a nice job of capturing the creative impact that Christianity has had on Western culture through history, inspiring much of its art, literature, music, architecture, philosophy, and political thought.

It was this creative impulse that Schaeffer hoped to revive in our own day.

Lizza writes as though anyone who applies Christianity to all of life is a dangerous extremist.  But that shows a failure to understand how worldviews work.

Marxists offer a Marxist perspective on economics, politics, family, technology, and virtually every other discipline.

The same is true of feminism and other isms.  Even evolution:  There’s a growth industry in books applying Darwinian categories to everything from politics (Darwinian Politics), to sexuality (The Evolution of Desire), to music (The Singing Neanderthals), to creativity (Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity), to literature (Madame Bovary’s Ovaries: A Darwinian Look at Literature).

In Total Truth I explain that such all-encompassing worldviews function as lenses through which people see the world.  Lizza quotes one of those passages, insinuating that it is a symptom of near-paranoia.  (”She tells her readers to be extremely cautious with ideas from non-Christians.”)

But the role of worldviews is standard stuff among Continental thinkers.  “All facts are theory-laden” has the status of cliché in philosophy of science.

Everyone has a more or less coherent worldview that gives them a toolbox of ideas to explain the world—even writers for the New Yorker.

And even if that worldview is masked in order to appear fair and balanced while writing a hit piece on a presidential candidate.  In fact, it’s the unstated assumptions that have greatest power to influence and control public perceptions.

You might even conclude that a “Dominionist” impulse is alive and well among members of the secularized ruling class.

Meanwhile, would someone please put Total Truth into the hands of Barack Obama?  I’d love to be a dangerous influence on him too.

Nancy Pearcey is the author of the bestselling   Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity and editor at large of The Pearcey Report. She is currently a faculty member atRivendell Sanctuary in Bloomington, MN. Her latest book is   Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, & Meaning. To inquire about media interviews, please emailpearcey@thepearceyreport.com or call Rivdendell Sanctuary at 952-996-1451.
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Also tagged , , , | Comments (0)

Responding to Oppenneimer and Lizza:Defending Francis Schaeffer’s influence on believers such as Michele Bachmann(Part 3)

August 20, 2011 – 8:54 pm

Both Oppenneimer and Lizza have attacked Francis Schaeffer’s view, but the way to know his views best is to take time to watch his film series. I said that in my first post and I will continue to show all ten episodes of his film series “How should we then live?”

This is a series of posts concerning presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and her religious beliefs. Particularly I will be looking at the identity of Francis Schaeffer who Michele said had major impact on her views. I also would say that Francis Schaeffer was the greatest christian philosopher of the 20th century.

In 1979 I first watched the film series “How should we then live?” and it was so impressive to me that I returned to my high school with permission from my former teacher to view the series again. In fact, Mr. Brink would tell the seniors at Evangelical Christian School in  Cordova, TN something to this affect: “I hope you realize how important this film series by Dr. Francis Schaeffer is. Here we have Everette Hatcher who is in college now, but he is coming back to see this film again because he knows how valuable it is.”

The best way to understand Michele Bachmann’s worldview is to watch the film series “How should we then live?” by Francis Schaeffer. I have provided a 30 minute episode at the end of this post with a written outline.  In this film series the humanist worldview is seen as weak because it is not able to give adequate answers to life’s tough questions while the christian worldview can.  Humanism has a finite base because it is limited to finite man while the Christian worldview is based on information provided by the infinite-personal God of the Bible.

____________________________–

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

New Yorker: Nancy Pearcey a Dangerous Influence on Michele Bachmann

By Rick Pearcey • August 9, 2011, 09:09 AM

And not just Nancy because of her more than 100,000-copies selling book Total Truth: Liberating Christianity From Its Cultural Captivity(“Wonderful” book, says Bachmann), but also Francis Schaefferbecause of his work, including the 10-part film series How Should We Then Live? and his book A Christian Manifesto.

Equally as dangerous as Total Truth, I would suggest, and perhaps even more so, is Nancy’s new book Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning. I hope Michele and Marcus Bachmann put this new rascal on their reading and thinking list. But don’t let the teenagers get ahold of it!

So who is Nancy? Not mentioned in the New Yorker is that Bachmann once told me, by phone, when Bachmann was a Minnesota state senator and considering a run for Congress, that she had two heroes: “Ann Coulter and Nancy Pearcey.”

Nancy is a former agnostic, who, like me, embraces critical thinking as a way of life. This too is, perhaps to some, seen as dangerous and even subversive. To us, it’s simply being human and taking responsibility for one’s ideas and one’s choices in life. I think Camusmight have liked that. I like Camus; he played soccer, like me.

For some reason, the so-called elite establishments in politics and media seem frightfully worried about the resurgence of a people who can live and think for themselves.

We’re not afraid of the big questions, and we’re not bigoted toward possible rational answers to the big questions, even if, as the Founding Fathers noticed, the possible answers involve taking seriously the subversive and liberating influence of the Creator.

This divine subversion, as you may recall, upset the reactionary, non-critical-thinking establishment of its own day. Imagine, those extremist tea-partiers actually had the audacity to write it up in theDeclaration of Independence (is that document still legal in New Yorker land?). By the way, here is the, sadly, all-too-predictable New Yorker hit piece on Bachmann. Enjoy!

How Should We Then Live 3-1

I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970’s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so many problems today with this excellent episode. He noted, “Could have gone either way—with emphasis on real people living in a real world which God had made, or humanism could take over with its emphasis on the individual things being autonomous…Humanism’s problem: What is the meaning of individual things, including Man, if there is no final thing to relate them to? And how do we know what is right or wrong if there is no absolute to give us certainty? Humanism ends with only statistical averages.” That is exactly where we are today in 2011. Just left with no final answers, but just wtih statistical averages.

E P I S O D E 3

T h e RENAISSANCE

I. The Art of the Renaissance Is One of Mankind’s Glories

A. The artists reflect their culture.

B. The artists often provide the way for the next step in culture.

1. Positive emphasis on nature in Giotto’s art.

2. Significance of work of Masaccio.

3. Perspective as a form of humanism.

4. Parallel and supportive developments in Low Countries. Van Eyck’s Adoration of the Lamb, the substitutionary work of the crucified and risen Christ. Also an example of landscape naturalism.

5. Dante’s life and work.

a) Following Aquinas, he mixed Christian and classical elements.

b) Dichotomy in Dante and other writers between sensual and idealized, spiritual love.

6. Brunelleschi’s architecture and the conquest of space.

7. Trend to autobiography and self-portraiture a mark of emphasis on Man.

C. Italian Renaissance music.

1. Invention of orchestration.

2. Invention of movable type for music.

II. Increased Drift Toward a Total Humanism

A. Could have gone either way—with emphasis on real people living in a real world which God had made, orhumanism could take over with its emphasis on the individual things being autonomous.

B. The die was cast: Man tried to make himself independent, autonomous.

C. A growing humanism sees what preceded the Renaissance as the “Dark Ages.”

D. Idea of a “Dark Age” and a “rebirth” in Renaissance.

E. Aquinas had opened the door for that which is the problem of humanism.

1. Illustrated by Raphael’s fresco in the Vatican:

The School of Athens.

2. Humanism’s problem: What is the meaning of individual things, including Man, if there is no final thing to relate them to? And how do we know what is right or wrong if there is no absolute to give us certainty? Humanism ends with only statistical averages.

F. Fouguet’s Red Virgin as an example.

1. At first, only religious values seemed threatened.

2. But gradually the threat spread to all of knowledge and all of life.

G. Man as hero: Michelangelo’s Prisoners and David . Change in his later work, however.

H. Leonardo da Vinci and the dilemma of humanism.

1. Logical conclusion of humanism as perceived by Leonardo.

2. Final pessimism of Leonardo an expression of inevitable progression of humanism towards pessimism.

III. Christianity’s Answer to Humanism’s Problem

Questions

1. In what ways is this treatment of the Renaissance different from other treatments with which you are familiar?

2. Attitudes toward nature and Man seem to be crucial to understanding the Renaissance. How far were these attitudes Christian and how far non-Christian?

3. Can you see any parallels between the evolution of humanism in the Renaissance—from hopeful dawn to ominous sunset–and the changing outlook on human and world problems during your own lifetime?

Key Events and Persons

Dante: 1265-1321

The Divine Comedy: 1300-1321

Giotto: c. 1267-1337

Brunelleschi: 1377-1446

Jan van Eyck: 1380-1441

Masaccio: 1401-1428

Fouquet: 1416-1480

Duomo, Cathedral of Florence: 1434

Leonardo da Vinci: 1452-1519

Michelangelo: 1475-1564

Michelangelo’s David: 1504

Francis I of France: 1494-1547

Further Study

There are so many good picture books of Renaissance art and architecture that, rather than try to select one or two, I will simply urge the importance of consulting some. With profit, one might also listen to

Renaissance music, such as the selection in The Seraphim Guide to Renaissance Music.

J. Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, 2 vols. (1958).

Benvenuto Cellini, Autobiography (1966).

E. Gorin, Italian Humanism (1966).

E. Panofsky, Studies in Iconology (1962).

Georgio Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects, 4 vols. (1963).

W.H.Woodward, Vittorino da Feltre and Other Humanist Educators (1963).

Related Posts:

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices”

E P I S O D E 1 0 How Should We Then Live 10#1 FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be led by an elite: John Kenneth […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”

E P I S O D E 9 How Should We Then Live 9#1 T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads to Pessimism Regarding a Meaning for Life and for Fixed […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation”

E P I S O D E 8 How Should We Then Live 8#1 I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, Degas) and Post-Impressionism (Cézanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason”

E P I S O D E 7 How Should We Then Live 7#1 I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act on his belief that we live […]

Taking up for Francis Schaeffer’s book Christian Manifesto

I have made it clear from day one when I started this blog that Francis Schaeffer, Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan and Adrian Rogers had been the biggest influences on my political and religious views. Today I am responding to an unfair attack on Francis Schaeffer’s book “A Christian Manifesto.” As you can see on the […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age”

E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in Modern Science. A. Change in conviction from earlier modern scientists.B. From an open to a closed natural system: […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age”

E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live 5-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement. A. […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation”

How Should We Then Live 4-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to how to be right with […]

US credit rating downgraded

U.S. Credit Rating Downgraded: Now They’ve Done It By J.D. Foster, Ph.D. August 6, 2011 Late on Friday, August 5, Standard & Poor’s (S&P) downgraded the United States credit rating from AAA, and really best in class, to AA+. In one fell swoop, S&P sent two separate and powerful messages. First, as The Heritage Foundation and […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

How Should We Then Live 3-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so many problems today with this excellent episode. He noted, “Could have gone either way—with emphasis on real people living in […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages”

How Should We Then Live 2-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard to authority and the approach to God.” […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age”

How Should We Then Live 1-1 Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why it fell. It fell because of inward […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Also tagged , , , | Comments (0)

Responding to Oppenneimer and Lizza:Defending Francis Schaeffer’s influence on believers such as Michele Bachmann(Part 2)

August 20, 2011 – 8:36 pm

Both Oppenneimer and Lizza have attacked Francis Schaeffer’s view, but the way to know his views best is to take time to watch his film series. I said that in my first post and I will continue to show all ten episodes of his film series “How should we then live?”

This is a series of posts concerning presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and her religious beliefs. Particularly I will be looking at the identity of Francis Schaeffer who Michele said had major impact on her views. I also would say that Francis Schaeffer was the greatest christian philosopher of the 20th century.

In 1979 I first watched the film series “How should we then live?” and it was so impressive to me that I returned to my high school with permission from my former teacher to view the series again. In fact, Mr. Brink would tell the seniors at Evangelical Christian School in  Cordova, TN something to this affect: “I hope you realize how important this film series by Dr. Francis Schaeffer is. Here we have Everette Hatcher who is in college now, but he is coming back to see this film again because he knows how valuable it is.”

The best way to understand Michele Bachmann’s worldview is to watch the film series “How should we then live?” by Francis Schaeffer. I have provided a 30 minute episode at the end of this post with a written outline.  In this film series the humanist worldview is seen as weak because it is not able to give adequate answers to life’s tough questions while the christian worldview can.  Humanism has a finite base because it is limited to finite man while the Christian worldview is based on information provided by the infinite-personal God of the Bible.

_____________________________________

In today’s episode on the Middle Ages we see that the church moves away from the more conservative view of the Bible that the early church held to the Catholic view that put more attention on what the leaders of the Catholic Church thought.

The Christian Post > Politics|Thu, Jun. 09 2011 11:20 AM EDT

Interview: Michele Bachmann on Faith, Family

By Isabel Lyman | Christian Post Contributor

Considered a Tea Party favorite, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) continues to garner positive reactions from conservative voters as she touts her pro-life stance and vows to repeal Obamacare.

  • bachmann
    (Photo: Reuters / Adam Hunger)
    U.S. Congresswoman and likely Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann arrives to pays tribute to veterans on Memorial Day in Dover, New Hampshire May 30, 2011.

The 55-year-old has yet to announce her candidacy for U.S. president but is expected to later this month.

Bachmann was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2006 and presently serves on the Financial Services Committee and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. She also chairs the House Tea Party Caucus. Before becoming a member of Congress, she served in the Minnesota State Senate. She is a graduate of Winona State University and Oral Roberts University.

In a brief interview with The Christian Post, Bachmann discussed two issues that are near and dear to her heart – faith and family. She is married to Dr. Marcus Bachmann, a clinical therapist, and is mother to Lucas, Harrison, Elisa, Caroline, and Sophia.

CP: I understand you converted to Christianity as a teenager. Can you share more about that experience?

Bachmann: I was born into a Christian family and brought up in a Lutheran church. My faith has been the center point of my life, really, since I was a child, but at 16 years of age, I fully surrendered my life over to Christ. At that point, as a teenager, I began to grasp the concept of Christ’s true love and forgiveness.

Order Online: How Should We Then Live? by Francis Shaeffer

CP: Are there any ministries, authors, or individuals who have contributed to your spiritual growth?

Bachmann: First of all, I would point to the teachings of Jesus Christ and to the Old and New Testaments. Furthermore, when my husband and I were in college we were influenced by Dr. Francis Schaeffer’s “How Should We Then Live?” He was one of the greatest philosophers of the last century. I also enjoy listening to Ravi Zacharias.

CP: You’ve been a stay-at-home mom and a working mom – a high-profile one at that. How do you juggle your current schedule and your responsibilities as a wife and mother of five?

Bachmann: I have to give credit to my loving and supportive husband of nearly 33 years, Marcus, through whom God has blessed me. I knew before I married Marcus that he would make a wonderful father, and he is. For the most part, we make our decisions, together as a couple and as a family, through prayer. We’ve made life decisions, from going to school, to starting a business, and to raising children after thought and prayer.

CP: You and your husband, Marcus, were foster parents for years. Did your Christian faith play a role in making the decision to assume that responsibility?

Bachmann: Yes, most certainly. We have broken hearts for at-risk kids. We were juggling toddlers already at home, but we saw another couple at church who were foster parents and we asked ourselves whether we could open our home and our hearts to foster children as well.

We never set out to take in 23 children, but children continued to need homes, so we continued to open our home to them.

Many children in the foster care system are often in the midst of a family challenge. Marcus and I sought to assist families during difficult times. We aren’t perfect people, nor are we a perfect family, but these children didn’t expect us to be either. They needed a loving home and care, and we tried our best every single day.

CP: You must be a strong proponent of Christian higher education, given that your law degree is from the former Oral Roberts University O.W. Coburn law school. Why did you choose that institution?

Bachmann: I am very supportive of Christian education, and it was my husband who actually encouraged me, as we were discussing law school options, to choose a Christian institution, and I agreed.

CP: If you choose to not pursue the presidency, what would you think about a Sarah Palinattempt?

Bachmann: Governor Palin is a friend and I know if she runs she will bring a unique background to the field.

How Should We Then Live 2-1

I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970’s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard to authority and the approach to God.” In my view we see a move from more conservative evangelicalism of the early church to the Catholic Church.

E P I S O D E 2

T h e

MIDDLE AGES

I. Introduction: The Post-Roman World

A. Social, political, and intellectual uncertainty.

B. General decline in learning, but monasteries were a depository for classical and Christian documents.

C. The original pristine Christianity of the New Testament gradually became distorted.

D. Decline of vital naturalism in art parallels decline of vital Christianity: positive and negative aspects of Byzantine art.

E. Music at time of Ambrose, later Gregorian chants.

II. The Church in the World: Economic, Social, Political.

How to be in the world but not of it.

A. Generosity of early church.

B. Ambivalence in Middle Ages about material goods; asceticism and luxury.

C. Economic controls to protect the weak.

D. Emphasis on work well done.

E. Care for social needs: e.g. hospitals.

F. Meaning of Christendom; attendant problems. Lorenzetti’s Allegory of Good and Bad Government.

III. Artistic Achievements

A. Close relation between church and society in art and life: e.g. reign of Charlemagne.

B. Basis of unified European culture laid by Charlemagne.

C. Birth and flowering of Romanesque architecture.

D. Birth and flowering of Gothic architecture.

IV. Links Between Philosophical, Theological, and Spiritual Developments on Eve of Renaissance

A. Aquinas’ emphasis on Aristotle.

1. Negative aspect: individual things, the particulars, tended to be made independent, autonomous.

2. With this came the loss of adequate meaning for the individual things, including Man, morals, values, and law.

B. Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard to authority and the approach to God.

C. Reaction of Wycliffe and Hus to theological distortions is prophetic of Reformation.

Questions

1. Summarize the negative and positive aspects of church influence in the Middle Ages.

2. “To speak of distortions of belief in the Middle Ages is to pretend that the church should have stood still when the apostles died. But we have to adapt to new circumstances and ideas. The medieval church did.” Comment.

3. Apply the particulars-universals discussion to modern circumstances. How do people repeat the same mistakes nowadays? Be specific.

Key Events and Persons

Aristotle: 384-322 B.C.

Ambrose: 339-397

Alcuin of York: 735-804

Charlemagne reign: c. 768-814

Crowned Emperor: 800

Romanesque style: 1000-1150

Gothic style: 1150-1250

St. Denis: 1140-

St. Francis: c. 1181-1226

Chartres: 1194-

Aquinas: 1225-1274

John Wycliffe: c. 1320-1384

John Hus: 1369-1415

Further Study

H. Fichtenau, The Carolingian Empire (1954).

Gordon Leff, Medieval Thought (1958).

C.S. Lewis, The Discarded Image (1964).

E.K. Rand, Founders of the Middle Ages (1954).

O. vonSimson, The Gothic Cathedral (1964).

R.W. Southern, The Making of the Middle Ages (1953).

Related Posts:

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices”

E P I S O D E 1 0 How Should We Then Live 10#1 FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be led by an elite: John Kenneth […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”

E P I S O D E 9 How Should We Then Live 9#1 T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads to Pessimism Regarding a Meaning for Life and for Fixed […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation”

E P I S O D E 8 How Should We Then Live 8#1 I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, Degas) and Post-Impressionism (Cézanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason”

E P I S O D E 7 How Should We Then Live 7#1 I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act on his belief that we live […]

Taking up for Francis Schaeffer’s book Christian Manifesto

I have made it clear from day one when I started this blog that Francis Schaeffer, Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan and Adrian Rogers had been the biggest influences on my political and religious views. Today I am responding to an unfair attack on Francis Schaeffer’s book “A Christian Manifesto.” As you can see on the […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age”

E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in Modern Science. A. Change in conviction from earlier modern scientists.B. From an open to a closed natural system: […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age”

E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live 5-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement. A. […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation”

How Should We Then Live 4-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to how to be right with […]

US credit rating downgraded

U.S. Credit Rating Downgraded: Now They’ve Done It By J.D. Foster, Ph.D. August 6, 2011 Late on Friday, August 5, Standard & Poor’s (S&P) downgraded the United States credit rating from AAA, and really best in class, to AA+. In one fell swoop, S&P sent two separate and powerful messages. First, as The Heritage Foundation and […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

How Should We Then Live 3-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so many problems today with this excellent episode. He noted, “Could have gone either way—with emphasis on real people living in […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages”

How Should We Then Live 2-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard to authority and the approach to God.” […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age”

How Should We Then Live 1-1 Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why it fell. It fell because of inward […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Also tagged , , , | Comments (0)