Talk:Francis Schaeffer

message: Here's an interview with Schaeffer's son which will be of interest to contributors here on Schaeffer and the Christian Right. A quote:
:JW: He was talking about real life, not just pie-in-the-sky.
:FS: That’s right. And I’m hoping that my book, aside from humanizing dad, will also redeem his reputation as someone who was known for something better than simply being a leader in the Religious Right. He really was known as a thinker.
:JW: Are you saying that Francis Schaeffer wouldn’t be part of the Christian Right?
:FS: Yes. He has been used by people like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and others to give some respectability to points of view that really were not his. What made my dad’s heart beat fastest was talking about people’s philosophical presuppositions and how they lived. He wanted to put people’s lives back together again, people who had problems. The politicized view of him is illegitimate.
:JW: But you have to admit that your father helped change the face of evangelical fundamentalism. Before then, no one was involved. Then he did Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, which was the beginning of Christian Protestantism’s involvement in the abortion issue. Thus, evangelical opposition to abortion was really started with your father.
:FS: That’s right.
:JW: In fact, you and your dad spearheaded all that. You changed the face of evangelical Christianity.
:FS: I talk about some of that in the book. But I can’t say that for sure.
:JW: I can say it.
:FS: What I can say is that there would not have been a Religious Right as it became known, including the make-up of the Republican Party, without the involvement of my dad, myself, Dr. C. Everett Koop, you and those of us who were in on all this at the very beginning.  My book discusses some of the unintended consequences. My father never would have pictured a day when his work would help lay a foundation for the anti-gay, anti-homosexual campaign being carried out by people like James Dobson and others. Those were not his issues. They were not his concerns. Dad was very narrowly focused. The issues that got him, me and people like you involved were very narrowly focused. And it was Roe v. Wade and all the fallout that came from that court decision.
--Flex (talk/contribs) 22:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A resource

message: This talk page is currently over 40KB long (in part due to my own prior contributions). Would anyone object if we archive most of the material other than the project tags?  I can take care of doing this, in about a week from now (April 15-16 2007), if there are no objections.  Thanks, Lini 10:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Thanks--Cberlet 17:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done; archive page 2 created. --Lini 03:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to archive

message: My apologies for the mistake in the setup of the Banner Shell.  And thanks to TimNelson for catching and fixing it. --Lini 23:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistake in setting up Banner Shell

message: Os Guinness and Frank Schaeffer seem to agree that Francis's later years were a dark period for him.  (Though Frank S. seems to see this as a continuation of a status quo.)  Could anything about this be added to the article?  I'm just curious.  I have read alot of Francis Schaeffer, but dont' really know much about his life beyond his writings.  Robert Sacamento (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, preferably with appropriate sources. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schaeffer's later years 

message: It has been over a year since I have commented on this article. Back then a wonderful person stepped in and served as kind of a mediator in the whole discussion. What resulted was a much better article than before. I would hope that someone would step in and do something with "The Family Relationships Section."  The average reader should not have to read about the sex life of a married couple. They can read Frank's book if they want all that "juicy" stuff. I would think that Wikipedia's standards would be much higher than the very blunt words now in the article. Anyone's consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated Awinger48 (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold -- take a whack at it and see what you can do to improve it. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I'm wrong. Someone already tried to clean up the verbiage in that section and it just got reverted back. Why should an inexperienced wikipedia person like myself do the same thing and have the same thing happen to me? Wouldn't it be more logical to ask for assistance from a more experienced wikipedia writer/editor? Awinger48 (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a quick look through the history and don't see anything along these lines. You need only be neutral in your wording and coverage and make sure what you say is verifiable (preferably because you supply a reliable source with it) and not original research. The biggest difficulty here is that there are two competing viewpoints expressed in the section, and the Wikipedia can't take sides with either one of them. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific revert I'm speaking of was that it was first written as "sexual intercourse." Then at 16:22 23 May 2008 it was changed to "sexual relationship."  Then at 17:57 23 May 2008 it was reverted back to "sexual intercourse." And on it went. And this is just over one word. I would question the whole "sexual" part being in the article at all. And it's not about opinions. It's about common decency in authorship and about the standards having to do with common decency at Wikipedia. I've said enough. If no one is interested I'll move along :-( Awinger48 (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed that change when it happened. I've taken another cut at it. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Sir. Awinger48 (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Family Relationships Section 

message: The "Family Relationships" section says "In contrast to Schaeffer's own experience as a single child of a father with a third-grade education and a depressed mother, he grew up with a drive to understand reality in its complexity, including the glorious and tragic human realities." This is a rambling, wordy, puzzling sentence. How is a "drive to understand reality in its complexity" in "contrast" to his experience as a child? In fact, what is a "drive to understand reality in its complexity?" And what does the phrase "the glorious and tragic human realities" mean? Are they two separate realities? What qualifies as a "glorious reality?" I'm assuming what the article is suggesting is that the difficult circumstances of Schaeffer's childhood led to an interest in philosophy and theology. If that is correct (I don't know enough about Schaeffer's bio to be sure), it's best to just say that, as simply and clearly as possible, with an economy of words. Can someone remedy this? Thank you! Sadiemonster (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Sentence 

message: "...he grew up with a drive to understand reality in its complexity, including the glorious and tragic human realities." it says.
 
Um.  This seems to me to be contradicted by the whole of the rest of the article, which portray him as ideologically committed to a farrago of canned certitudes.  I am sure that he was highly intelligent, boy and man, but seeking a comfortable set of anodynes is a different thing from trying to "understand reality in its complexity."
 
I have no problem with biographers taking a pleasant tone about subjects they like, but big puffy sillinesses like this seem to me out of place.
 
More interestingly, what is it about his character or upbringing that made him seek solace in this peculiar way?  Surely that is a sounder sort of question for an encyclopedia to be pursuing.
 
For people interested in his ministry, The Daily Hatch, a BlogSpot of Everett Hatcher III, one of his followers, continues to publish almost daily. I don't recommend it, but it takes all kinds, I guess... 
 
David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wild Contradiction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Francis Schaeffer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901070521/http://www.covenantseminary.edu/apologetics/fsi.asp to http://www.covenantseminary.edu/apologetics/fsi.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110925072515/http://www.covenantseminary.edu/academics/institutesinitiatives/francisaschaefferinstitute/ to http://www.covenantseminary.edu/academics/institutesinitiatives/francisaschaefferinstitute/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Francis Schaeffer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061221055357/http://www.markheard.net/heardtribute/archive/schaeffer1_c_today1997.html to http://www.markheard.net/heardtribute/archive/schaeffer1_c_today1997.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified