Talk:Francis Schaeffer/Archive 2

message: :On the subject of defending, I'm going to come to the defense of Awinger.  I'll be upfront about 2 things:  a.) I do have a personal POV about Francis Schaeffer; I have been strongly influenced for the positive by his writings and by interaction with the L'Abri organization which is his heritage.  b.) Awinger and I have corresponded 2 or 3 times by email, after discovering a mutual interest in L'Abri; the main gist of which was that he asked me to comment on his contributions to this article, I question to which I had not yet responded.  So, in a sense I am defending a friend for his use of the verbiage defend.
:At various times, the role of a Wiki editor may include either "criticizing" or "defending" the subject of an article, while respecting that the overall effect should be for Wikipedia to be NPOV.  The advantage of Wikipedia is that it allows multiple editors, who often do each have a personal POV (it's difficult not to have one, especially if one writes about subjects one is interested in and has some knowledge of), to work together to produce an article that is NPOV, in the sense that the various existing POVs on the subject are represented in a balanced fashion in the article.  So, one may find it necessary to add "criticism" or "defense" to an article to balance out what is already there.  But, it should not be one's own personl "criticism" or "defense" (WP:NOR), but should rather reflect published "schools of thought", with citations.
:Regarding the discussion about the content of the Francis Schaeffer article related to the Christian Right, and, specifically, Dominionism - I'm going to make an attempt to go to the heart of the concerns, as a person who does have a POV about Schaeffer, but has not yet contributed to the article other than placing the bio tag on this talk page.  I'm going to be somewhat blunt about POVs, because I think that POVs are central to this issue.  1) This article is about Francis Schaeffer.  There is a lot more "to Francis Schaeffer", i.e. a lot more to say about him, than just his influence on the Christian Right.  So, we would want to avoid having the article dominated by the discussion of his influence on the Christian Right.  2) I think there is a school of thought that represents a POV about Dominionism, theocracy, and the Christian Right, that it is in some sense dangerous and needs to be watched, hence the articles on TheocracyWatch, Political Research Associates being actually part of the Dominionism template itself.  Therefore, a strong association with Dominionism and the Christian Right in the Schaeffer article can bring a POV into the article that Schaeffer was a proponent of "dangerous" ideas.  A collaborative effort, in the true Wikipedia spirit, at an article that responsibly portrays Schaeffer's actual ideas would include being careful that citations are not taken out of context, and that Schaeffer's own positions are not confused with applications of his ideas or writings that were made by individuals or organizations after his death.
:In conclusion: 1.) Chip, I'm going to ask you a question, this is intended to be a straightforward question, not sarcastic or rhetorical - I gather (admittedly from scanning/skimming, not reading in depth), that you have done research and have published on the "roots" of today's Christian right, including how it may have been shaped or influenced by the writings of earlier thinkers, such as Schaeffer.  I can definitely understand how material about the influence of Schaeffer might fit in such writings.  The question here is, Why do you believe that it is important, in the biographical article on Francis Schaeffer, to include more than a passing reference to just one of the movements that claim to be influenced by him, after his lifetime?  2.)  On this talk page, and in the article itself, I have seen evidence, in the past, of editors attempting to work together, and addressing one another as responsible, thinking individuals, and valuable contributors to Wikipedia, and I hope that will continue in the future.--Lini 10:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: God bless you ma'am and thank you :-)  --Awinger48 11:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In reference to the note above to Lini by Cberlet at 03:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On Defending

message: If you have a chance, take a look at WP:BLP/A.  It is only an essay, not policy, and reading the associated discussion page will probably be useful as well as reading the essay itself.  I think Schaeffer pretty much falls into the category of Academic and Artistic Bios - as a lot of the content of the article is related to his published works.  I was made aware of this essay through the Biography WikiProject September Newsletter.  I include it here because I find it helpful to have suggested guidelines, precedents, etc, for the type of article I am contributing to. Cheers, Lini 21:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Lini. I've also put my name on the list at the WP Biography Project. As another suggestion for this whole article on Francis Schaeffer, WP has an excellent Template:Biography. Maybe we could use it and tweak this article a bit. Any thoughts on this out there? :-) --Awinger48 10:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to WP Essay on Academic and Artistic Biographies

message: I've attempted to further integrate what had been encompassed by "Schaeffer and the Christian Right", "A Christian Manifesto", and "Criticism from Christian Reconstructionists".  My strategy was a Level 3 heading of "Political Activism" under "Legacy", then to begin with Schaeffer's works themselves, and critical response at that time, moving on to what has been said about the later influence of his works.  This is not meant to be final.  Both of you will probably find things that you don't like about it.  I also think there is more work to be done.  I have moved here, some of the text from the article, where either I could not see clearly the connection to Schaeffer and his work, or where I thought it was not relevant to the section on the Christian Right/Christian Manifesto, or where it seemed to detract from the particular point being addressed, but did not fit in smoothly elsewhere.  I am open to arguments or good suggestions about working them back in.
:"Before Schaeffer started his work at L'Abri and advocated activism in the public square, many American fundamentalists and evangelicals were already committed to both a social and political form of conservatism."  
:"George Marsden argues that this new focus on secular humanism "revitalized fundamentalist conspiracy theory." The threats of "Communism and socialism could, of course, be fit right into the humanist picture," Marsden notes, "but so could all the moral and legal changes at home without implausible scenarios of Russian agents infiltrating American schools, government, reform movements, and mainline churches"  Marsden, George M. (1991). Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 109.."
:"Two leading activists of the Christian right, Gary Bauer and James Dobson, called the battle pitting secular humanists against Christians over the moral foundation of America a "great Civil War of Values" Martin, William. (1996). With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America. New York: Broadway Books, p. 344."
:"Christian Reconstructionism is the robust intellectual current that helped introduce Dominionism to the Christian Right, but today there are a broad range of dominionist theories and proposed action plans, with Christian Reconstructionism among the most doctrinaire and far reaching--with critics calling it theocratic.Berlet, Chip."The Christian Right, Dominionism, and Theocracy" The Public Eye Magazine, accessed September 12, 2006. "
:"By "Christian society" and "Christian alternative" North and Chilton are specifically discussing Christian Reconstructionism, which is Postmillennial. Schaeffer is a premillennialist (p.128)."
:"Supporters of Schaeffer present a different picture. Packer, James I., "No Little Person," Foreward to Ronald W. Ruegsegger, E., Reflections on Francis Schaeffer, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986, pp. 7-17. Reposted at Chalet Eagle Ministries. Retrieved 24 September 2006.Wilson, Larry E., "What Can We Learn From Francis Schaeffer?" Appendix B to L.G. Parkhurst, Francis Schaeffer: The Man and His Message," Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1985, pp. 217-219. Reposted at Chalet Eagle Ministries. Retrieved 23 September 2006.Winger, Allan L. "Schaeffer A Dominionist - Not!" from Chalet Eagle Ministries. Retrieved 23 September 2006. 
:"Schaeffer argued that Christians have a duty to live out "the Lordship of Christ in the totality of life" Schaeffer, Francis, The Great Evangelical Disaster, Westchester,IL: Crossway, 1984, 2nd para of Preface (the central theme of his books). and to challenge encroaching secular humanism.  But some authors point out that LaHaye and others who cite Schaeffer's influence may be extending their ideas well beyond what Schaeffer himself suggested."
Please, let's continue not to revert, and not to delete text without bringing it to the discussion page, as I've done here.  I also hope my restructuring in combination with  Cberlet's earlier restructuring did address some of the issues with duplication and logical flow of the section.  That was my main intention.  So, I'm hoping from here on, in future discussion, we can really focus on details, e.g. someone wants one particular sentence added back in, or someone finds some other particular sentence OR or POV.
Thanks for the opportunity to participate in trying to make this a good quality article.
--Lini 05:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It reads much more clearly and concisely, thanks. I moved the section on secular humanism to Christian right in United States politics. I still think there is some confusion over the term "dominionism," as it is a tendency withing the Christian Right, not what the Christian Right "does."--Cberlet 12:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! What a difference. This sure is a pleasant surprise Lini.  I agree with Cberlet.  It IS much more clear and concise.  You have given us some very special help here. I hope this version of the article stays around for a long time. Thank you very much :-) Now I think I'll take a much needed break and take care of some family matters that have come up. Good working with ya'll :-) --Awinger48 01:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits to Christian Right/Christian Manifesto - Oct 18