Natural Law: The Foundation of an Orderly Economic System
by Alberto M. Piedra

“When mind runs wild, dishonours God
And worships self and senseless pride
Then Law eternal wields the rod”
–Euripides

Euripides wrote these words about the hedonistic citizens of Thebes who deceived themselves by denying the reality of divinity and pridefully elevating excessive materialism in its place. As Alberto M. Piedra, author of Natural Law, The Foundation of an Orderly Economic System says of Euripides’ warning to the citizens of Thebes:

“The citizens of Thebes were so engrossed with themselves that they lost sight of their own deficiencies. The were convinced that, because of their righteousness and honesty, they could dictate their own way of life and moral codes to their less-enlightened neighbors. Euripides in his famous tragedy Bacchae warns the Greeks about the dangers of self-deception in particular the Thebans’ when they attempted to put limits on divinity. He asserts the reality of divinity in a world that, by becoming so hedonistic and foolish in its customs, had denied its reality in favor of an accomodating ideology. Pride comes before fall and this is what Euripedes was trying to tell the people of Thebes…”

Alberto M. Piedra acts as a modern-day Euripedes by sounding the same warning. We are experiencing prosperity at an unprecedented level, fueled by the most successful economic system of them all, capitalism. But, in this rush to produce and acquire more and more, are we diminishing the most important value of any system, political or economic –the dignity of the human person? Piedra believes that we are and he traces this to a fundamental flaw in the ethical framework of our economic system, the fact that our much-vaunted and treasured free-market economic system is not based on an acknowledgement of the primacy and reality of Natural Law derived from God.

Piedra is presently the Donald E. Bently Professor of Political Economy at the Institute of World Politics. He is an economist, a Catholic Scholar, an American diplomat and a lecturer. This book is part of a series entitled Studies in Ethics and Economics edited by Samuel Gregg of the Acton Institute. It is the position of the Editors that “Economics as a discipline cannot be detached from a historical background that was, it is increasingly recognized, religious in nature.”

Thus, in this book Piedra explores the relationship between religion and economics, focusing on the economic theories that first arose during the time of the Enlightenment when philosophers were attempting the assert the autonomy of man from the Divine and redefining the theory of Natural Law to fit the deductive, mechanistic principles of the natural sciences.

Piedra first looks back to Thomas Aquinas for a traditional definition of Natural Law:

“…the participation of the eternal law in the rational creature…It is nothing other than the light of reason infused in us by God, whereby man understands what must be done and what must be avoided, what is good and what is evil.”

This construct was not to last in philosophical thought, for Descartes uncoupled human reason from the authority of Natural Law and assigned to it his perception of how nature works, “a purely mechanistic explanation of the universe.” Thus, ethics shifted from the transcendental to the material and deterministic.

The founders of free-market economics like Adam Smith, though he was a believer in God, incorporated the concept of the primacy of human reason over the transcendental into economic theory. Rejecting the definition of Natural Law set out by Thomas Aquinas, Adam Smith, a true man of the Enlightenment, “preached the total emancipation of reason from any higher authority than reason itself.” Instead he posited the idea of the “invisible hand or what deist philosophers called divine reason.”

The result was to create a theory of an economic system divorced from Natural Law and man’s purpose as set out by God. Instead, it was to be governed by the Invisible Hand, a naturalistic, deterministic, mechanical guide that would direct the self-interested actions of men to a result that would enhance the common good.

In the view of Piedra, the failure of the Classical School is that it did not recognize the fallen nature of Man. The Classicists divorced competition from moral content, replacing it with a “belief in a purely mechanistic and naturalistic conception of society, where the welfare of its member depends on their natural sympathies.” As, Piedra notes, Smith’s contentions of the mutual sympathies between men is not enough to explain the “moral content” of men’s actions. Piedra asks:

To Piedra, true freedom honors the dignity of the human person because it springs from God—not government or custom. God gave man the power to choose good or evil—that is the true essence of freedom. It is not the concept that man can do whatever he wants. A man who is slave to his “feelings or passions” is not truly free. True freedom lies in self-regulation based on the moral authority of Christian teachings on ethical and moral teachings. A mechanistic, materialistic view of the way free markets works is deficient in that it does not acknowledge man’s God-given freedom to choose right from wrong and because it is purely deterministic in its construct.

The excesses of nineteenth century capitalism demonstrated the insufficiency of an ethical system disconnected from the transcendental and based solely on man’s autonomous concept of “natural” human virtues. The apparent deficiencies of the economic system, which produced much prosperity for some, at the same time failed to address the pitiable condition of the laboring classes and the abuses of child labor. Recognition of this failure led to a “renewed and powerful cry” against the bourgeoisie, coming in the form of opposing economic theories such as Romanticism, Marxism and American Institutionalism.

None of these opposing theories were based on Natural Law as defined by Aquinas. In fact, Piedra notes that Marx’s antipathy toward religion is still a factor in modern times because it sowed “the seeds of pride and the belief in earthly paradises” and has animated the “secularist mentality” that has infused with our “consumer society presently predominating in Western society”

Of the other theories, Romanticism soon faded, leaving a residual moral relativism in its wake. Institutionalism born of Thorsten Veblen’s work, Theory of the Leisure Class, and his class-warfare theory of “conspicuous consumption”, produced no immediate suggested solutions, but John Kenneth Galbraith presently carries on Veblen’s ideas in Galbraith’s championing of the causes of more equal distribution of wealth and increased government regulation.

Piedra goes on to discuss the neo-classicists who, like Smith, accepted the concept of a self-regulating economy, but for whom a new utilitarianism became the “cornerstone”. This “cornerstone” essentially reduced human behavior to “rational calculation aimed at maximum utility.” The Neo-Classicists essentially removed the consideration of social relations from the field of economics—thus wholly dispensing with consideration of traditional ethics.

Though Piedra does not directly address it, his point is evident because the study of economics has essentially shifted from any real emphasis on human behavior to a highly mathematical field. Man, seemingly, has become a part of the equation rather than the purpose for it.

Next, Piedra addresses the theories of Keynes, who argued that production derives from “effective demand” rather than supply, and who rejected the belief of a self-regulating system. Theorizing from the depths of the Great Depression, Keynes postulated that the unemployment pervasive at that time was not transitory—as the Classicists would argue—but rather the result of a shifting equilibrium and perhaps permanent in the absence of government intervention. Thus, Keynes, albeit unintentionally as he was no socialist, prepared the way for the collectivism of the Welfare State, which poses a threat to both human freedom and dignity.

Thus, Piedra has laid out for examination two branches of philosophical liberalism, individualism and collectivism. He has addressed the two in the context of human dignity.

He demonstrates that collectivism as practiced in a pure socialist form totally devalues the human man and destroys all associations, such as family, “lying between the individual and the State” in the cause of “society.” It denies human freedom and “considers man as a mere part of the social order.” From there, the effects of collectivism are a matter of degree.

However, Piedra shows us that capitalism can cause these same problems by overemphasizing the individual to the detriment of other associations and society as a whole. As Piedra points out:

“In a strict individualistic economic system, intermediate organizations such as the family tend to lose their significance and run the danger of no longer being considered indispensable for the welfare of society. Priority is given to the individual even at the expense of destroying the family unit. Attacks against the family as an institution become more frequent and questions such as abortion and other issues that have moral implications are left exclusively to individual choice with little regard—if any—toward the well-being of society as a whole.”

According to Piedra, a basic problem that has existed in free-market economic theory since the time of the classicists is that it has failed to recognize that the “market economy is only one part of man’s social life.” What about the parts where men and women are mothers, fathers, friends and family rather than competitors, producers and investors? Man is more than what he can produce or consume. How can an economic system that does not acknowledge the totality man—both the material and the sublime– protect and advance the dignity of the Human Person. Piedra demonstrates that it cannot and must be adjusted to better fit the reality and purpose of man as laid out by God.

Thus Piedra says that we must properly ground our market economy in Natural Law. To achieve this, Piedras looks to two basic principles, which are at the core of Catholic Social Doctrine; the principle of subsidiarity, and the principle of solidarity.

Piedra does not define these terms for the reader, so other sources must be consulted. Subsidiarity “holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be.” Solidarity is, “the acceptance of our social nature and the affirmation of the bonds we share with all our brothers and sisters. Solidarity “creates an environment in which mutual service is encouraged. It also the social conditions in which human rights can be respected and nurtured. The ability to recognize and accept the whole range of corresponding duties and obligations that are embedded in our social nature can occur only in an atmosphere enlivened by solidarity.”

Piedra claims that collectivist policies intrude as well as other destructive welfare policies when these principles are discarded. He discusses the importance of these principles in the relationships of capital and labor, the family and the State, and between countries in this time of globalization.

To sort out the relationship between labor and capital, Piedra emphasizes the importance of work as laid out by God in Genesis. Human work is necessary for man to develop as a human being and to fulfill God’s purpose for him. Human labor cannot be treated as just one more ingredient of production because of who man is—a being create in the image of God. Man must redeem work to its original purpose by practicing the human virtues of solidarity. Without these virtues, the worker will do the least work possible. Conversely, the captain of industry must cultivate virtue if he is to promote a better understanding between labor and capital. It follows that he cannot view his workers as mere cogs in a machine—but must have regard for which they are—human beings entitled to dignity and respect.

As between the family and the State, the principle of subsidiarity must be reasserted. Piedra observes that because of the wholesale entry of women into the job market, people’s roles as economic producers are gaining primacy over their roles in the family. Because of this, care for the very young, the infirm and the very old is being increasingly placed on the State. It has become apparent that the social programs of the state that replace the family in caring for these members are running out of money. The future prospect for these programs is bleak considering the declines in population in the Western world.

Piedra discusses the demographical implications of decades of misguided warnings and policies addressing the so-called dangers of overpopulation. The end result of those combined with the hyper-materialism of our Western Society is such a decline in population that there will eventually be insufficient numbers of young people to support and care for the elderly and infirm. This poses threats to human dignity as evidenced by the increasing demand for mercy killings and assisted suicide because it leads to human value being measured by ability to produce. Thus, it is not merely socialism of the Nazi type that has led to the concept of “useless eaters.” The materialism of our hyper-individualistic capitalism can also lead to such horror.

It is Piedra hope that renewal of the principle of subsidiarity will enable the family to “rescue man from his dehumanizing selfishness” and that it will supplant the state in the areas of caring for the very young and the very old. He further hopes that in taking back the nurturance of the young, the family will replace the coercive tactics of the State’s attempts to protect the environment by teaching the virtues that demand respect for the natural world that God created.

In the area of globalization, Piedra argues that to succeed while protecting human dignity, all participants must acknowledge “a common denominator which reflects a unified recognition of a generalized ethical code founded on Natural Law.” It must be recognized that “human rights” flow—not as concessions from society or the state—but that they belong to man because of who he is—the creation of God.

According to the principle of solidarity, Piedra insists that we cannot ignore the promotion of justice and the existence of “flagrant social inequalities” that exist both at the “international level and within nations.” He posits that this “will require a change of lifestyles, of models of production and consumption and, if necessary, of some of the established structures of power which today govern societies” as it is “unacceptable that the more affluent world, in spite of the huge technological innovations”…”keeps its eyes closed to the degradation and misery that exists around it.”

Further, as globalization continues, the principle of subsidiarity requires that the different cultures be respected and must be considered to hold back the kind of pride that led to the mistakes made by the Hebrews when they tried to build the Tower of Babel. Though, Piedra does not mention it, the recent events concerning the EU Constitution that is a prime example of the results of overweening pride on the part of men who believe that they can socially re-engineer a continent full of culturally different people.

This book contains important ideas that every Christian and every supporter of free-market economics should consider. It shows how our present capitalistic system–without the regulating influence of a properly grounded ethical framework can and will produce not only the same kind of assaults on human dignities as its oppositional collectivist competitors, Marxism and socialism—but also the seeds of its own destruction. For without a proper moral foundation, capitalism is like an unmoored ship buffeted by the winds of moral relativism and the swells of intermittent demands for collectivism.

The book is written from the Catholic perspective in a scholarly manner. It is not light reading, and I kept a dictionary within easy reach. That said, it is one of the most educational and valuable books I have read. It was very interesting to me as a Protestant because I had never heard of the principles of subsidiary and solidarity attendant to Natural Law. The principles advanced by this book further build upon what I am learning about what the Protestant scholars Francis Schaeffer and Nancy Pearcey have written about society setting aside religious beliefs and values when learning how the world works.

Piedra aptly demonstrates the dangers of rejecting God’s law and the concept of Man’s freedom to make a choice between right and wrong when formulating economic theory. As Piedra concludes, man must accept his limitations, and recognize his own and other’s entitlement to human dignity and respect as the best chance for freedom and our free-market economic system. Should we fail, we may as Euripedes predicted for the citizens of Thebes, experience Law Eternal wielding its Rod.

*Disclaimer. I received a free copy of this book through Mind & Media in return for writing this review.

I wrote yesterday that I am reading The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer . It was only recently that I learned about Francis Schaeffer by reading Nancy Pearcey’s wonderful book, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity that I previously mentioned here. For a truly masterful review of Total Truth, please visit Tapcott’s Copy Desk. Nancy Pearcey was a student of Francis Schaeffer at L’Abri during the early 1970′s.

Nancy Pearcey’s husband, J. Richard Pearcey is a wonderful writer as well. He is a former managing editor of Human Events. He was also a student of Francis Schaeffer’s at L’Abri. I have the good fortune to be on his list for e-mailing announcements.

Today he broadcast a wonderful tribute he has written to Francis Schaeffer in honor of the 50th anniversary of the founding of L’Abri by Francis Schaeffer and his wife, Edith. He has given me permission to publish the whole thing here.

Thank you, Richard.

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER

A Student’s Appreciation of a Distinct Voice
By J. Richard Pearcey

It happened one summer day in the early ‘70s on the campus of Georgia Tech in Atlanta. That’s when I first heard about an individual unlike any Christian I had ever met, and about an approach to people and ideas that was unlike any I had ever known. Strange as it may seem, Francis Schaeffer and his distinctive approach would begin to have an impact on this college
student’s life before I knew anything about him or his work

How can this be? For an answer, we begin where Francis and Edith Schaeffer began, when L’Abri Fellowship entered the world in1955, hidden from view in the Alpine village of Huemoz, Switzerland, when the couple set out several principles to guide their new work. As we shall see, each of the principles emphasizes prayer as a way to achieve the overarching purpose of “[showing] forth by demonstration, in our life and work, the existence of God.”

After ten years in pastorates in America, and then a few years in Europe as missionaries, the Schaeffers on June 4, 1955, “reached a decision.” They were ready to act on the conviction that a real God who is personal would be able to act and communicate in space and time, in the present moment of history, and that living and working on the basis of prayer was key to demonstrating the existence of such a God in a “hard, hard world” that could sniff out phonies a mile away.

For Schaeffer, “belief” that such a God exists was not a matter of subjective “faith,” but rather a reasoned conclusion based on evidence. As a teenager, and then again later as an adult, Schaeffer had worked through agnosticism and concluded that the Judeo-Christian worldview is objectively true—that is, that the system of thought and life set forth in the Old and New Testaments answers the basic philosophic questions of life in a way that is rationally consistent, historically verifiable, and existentially livable. In addition to taking God seriously, Schaeffer also took students and other searching people seriously as individuals whose questions should not be relegated to “smokescreen” status — as a front for spiritual rebellion, for example — but rather respected as the searchings of people who need answers to basic questions. This is why he tried to give “an honest answer to honest questions” to those who wondered whether God exists, truth is real, or life has any meaning.

But, however important, and Biblical, is this emphasis on having solid intellectual grounds for affirming the existence of God, Schaeffer felt something else was needed— namely, “the demonstration [italics added] that the Personal-Infinite God is really there in our generation,” as he wrote in the foreword of Edith’s book, L’Abri, which was published in 1969. Schaeffer understood that “talk” really is cheap, and that words written in books also can be “cheap” if they are just “god-talk” that gives readers a momentary buzz that disappears soon after the book is put down and the readers confront reality.

He realized that people need to see an exhibition that God actually exists, and that’s why he felt led to live a life, and begin a ministry, based on principles that emphasized verifiably answerable prayer, so that atheists, agnostics, and doubting Christians (sometimes hobbled by other Christians), could observe “living evidence,” to borrow a phrase from author Udo Middelmann, of God at work in the modern world. Schaeffer’s vision was that when “people come to L’Abri they are faced with these two aspects simultaneously”—honest answers to honest questions and the practical demonstration of the existence of God—”as the two sides of a single coin.”

MADISON AVENUE VS. GOD

The first of L’Abri’s founding principles was to “make our financial and material needs known to God alone, in prayer, rather than sending out pleas for money.” From his own experience, Schaeffer knew that some in leadership positions at Christian organizations speak with inspiring confidence that they earnestly believe it is God who is at work in providing financing. But in reality, if you go behind the scenes, one may learn that, despite the god-talk, it isn’t so much God at work, but rather what Schaeffer regarded as the “arm of the flesh”—that is, a “Madison Avenue” sales mentality that relies on a vast system of marketers, fundraisers, PR people, researchers, ghostwriters, and all the rest, to come up with clever, and sometimes less
than honest, ways to “sell” Jesus or the ministry, its necessity, effectiveness, influence, and so on, to the public.

For Schaeffer, Christianity is worthless if it isn’t true. But if it is true, its principles have to be practiced in a way that is observable to any who care to take a look, whether they be French existentialist, German agnostic, Cambridge student or London dockworker. PR is cheap if not rooted in authenticity. It is one thing to confidently pronounce, “We believe in prayer,” for example, and yet really rely on a fundraising apparatus that spits out hundreds of thousands of impersonal form letters, sometimes of questionable veracity, written by marketers and signed by a machine that inscribes the name of a well-known persona. It is quite another thing, as Schaeffer knew from personal experience, to actually live and operate a ministry on the basis of the principle that “we believe that He can put into the minds of the people of His choice the share they should have in the work.” Witnessing specific answers to specific prayers at L’Abri helped many skeptics “to see” that a personal God actually exists and that Christianity may have more going for it than they had thought.

Schaeffer was once talking with a group at L’Abri, and he said that people sometimes ask him about the practicality of L’Abri’s bringing financial requests to the Lord as opposed to making such requests known publicly. “What do you do if the money doesn’t come in?” would be the question. Schaeffer gave perhaps the only possible honest answer—if he authentically believed what he said about a God who is really there and who can act into history today in response to human communication: “Well, I guess we’ll be smaller.”

In the real world of some big-time Christian ministries, fundraising too often makes the world go round, and a financial shortfall might well result not in an honest reexamination of one’s methods and a renewed questioning regarding where God may be leading, but rather in firing staff and re-oiling the money machine. Schaeffer regarded such an approach not just as un-Biblical, but also as profoundly ugly and destructive, regardless of how much outward “success” or “influence for Christ” an organization or person might appear to achieve in this life in supposed centers of power.

PEOPLE OF GOD’S CHOICE

L’Abri’s second founding principle was that they would “pray that God will bring the people of His choice to us, and keep all others away.” Such a prayer may seem an odd way to build a ministry or conduct “outreach,” but Schaeffer understood that, if God is real and can speak and act in the modern world, it follows that such a God ought to be able to lead people who need help to a hidden-away place such as L’Abri.

“There are no advertising leaflets,” Edith explained in L’Abri, “and this book is the first to be written about the work.” The Schaeffers’ mindset is decisive here. They weren’t focused on trying to build a powerbase, create a constituency, lead a huge organization, rehabilitate a reputation, craft an image, recover past glory, carefully manufacture celebrity, or impose a legacy. Rather, they simply made themselves available to God to be helpful to people and decided to let the results take care of themselves. Edith’s book describes some of the unusual ways in which people heard about the Schaeffers, or just happened upon a chalet door at L’Abri to find a new world of concern for truth and for the individual.

A personal story may help illustrate this. To build on what I said earlier, in the summer of 1971, I was a college student living with a group of people in Atlanta in a fraternity house on the campus of Georgia Tech. We were participating in a discipleship program with a Christian organization called the Navigators. During one weekend, I was sitting with others in the large living room of the house, where we had gathered to hear a talk about a person I’d never heard of. If you met this person on the street, said the speaker, and you asked him, “How are you doing?,” he might well reply, “What do you mean?” Members of the audience chuckled, and I remember thinking that such an unexpected reply could be the start of an intriguing interchange. Little else about the talk stands out in my mind.

Except this. About halfway through, the back of my neck began to tighten up, a kind of pinching sensation. It felt like one of those occasions when your grandmother grabs you with her thumb and index finger and pinches the back of your arm while you’re doing something you ought not be doing. Except that in this case there was no pain in the “pinch” I felt in the back of my neck. The sensation wasn’t unpleasant in any way. But it did get my attention. “Strange,” I thought. In fact, I’d never felt anything quite like it before—or since. The sensation stayed with me, so much so that I decided to take note of the surroundings, in case there was something else happening that perhaps I needed to be aware of. I looked around the room and considered the setting, the speaker, the other people sitting in chairs.

Nothing stood out. Then it occurred to me. There was something new—the unusual individual the speaker was talking about. I made a mental note to keep in mind the unfamiliar name of a person about whom I knew next to nothing: Francis Schaeffer.

At the time, I had no idea that I might be on the receiving end of the Schaeffers’ prayer that God would bring the people of His choice to L’Abri. By August the next year, I was hitchhiking through Luxembourg and Germany on my way to Switzerland. There are many such stories that could be recounted, each with its own peculiarities, which help demonstrate to many searching people that God exists and acts into history today.

YOUR PLANNING IS TOO SMALL

A third principle that helped set Schaeffer apart from his contemporaries, whether Christian or otherwise, was his attitude toward planning. Schaeffer did not reject planning per se, but he did specifically reject the practice of allowing human planning to replace the possibility of moment-by-moment leadership from the Lord. For this reason, the third founding principle of L’Abri was that “we pray that God will plan the work, and unfold His plan to us (guide us, lead us) day by day, rather than planning the future in some clever or efficient way in committee meetings.”

Schaeffer reasoned that the Infinite-Personal God could be far more effective than any human committee or charismatic leader with a plan, even if such leadership has vast financial resources, or other avenues of power, at its disposal. The history of L’Abri appears to bear this out, as the Schaeffers worked in principled obscurity with individuals one by one in simply trying to address the questions and personal concerns of those who crossed their doorstep.

L’Abri Fellowship had no master plan, a shoestring budget, and no formula for becoming a ministry of international reach and reputation. If the Lord so led, Schaeffer was quite content to work hidden away in relative obscurity on the side of a mountain. There was no plan to write books, build a chapel, create a study center, begin a cassette program, film documentaries, hold conferences, or expand into other countries—all of which eventually happened. In fact, from the point of view of secularized marketing or some “steamroller” Christian organizations (as Schaeffer calls them in his letters), Schaeffer did it all wrong. But his own life struggles had brought him to a place of understanding that the practice of being alive to God moment by moment is far more crucial to authentic living as a person, to genuine success in ministry, to real victory in the seen and unseen world, than any plan or program devised by the well-heeled, the
well-known, and powerful ever could be. The thousands of diverse individuals, believer and unbeliever alike, who found their way to L’Abri and a more humane Christianity would likely agree.

NO LITTLE WORKERS

I recall that Schaeffer expressed during the ‘70s his gratitude that, of all the people who had come to work on staff at L’Abri, not one had left Huemoz on bad terms. This is an enviable statement, even if one would not want to deny that there might be legitimate instances of concern in the later history of the work, which would hardly be a surprise, given that human beings are imperfect creatures.

The record of Christian organizations in regard to how regular people are treated, or people lower on the perceived totem pole of power are treated, could be better. This is well-known by people who have worked with religious organizations and celebrities, and it is evident from books and magazine articles on the topic of spiritual abuse. Schaeffer was concerned about the trail of damaged people left in the wake of some apparently fine people of sterling public repute whose stated aim was to win the world for Christ but whose methods of ministry stand in sharp contrast to the spirit of Christ. It was not at all uncommon to hear a struggling Christian say that he had come to L’Abri as his “last hope,” having been spiritually flattened by some variant of a steamroller “hard-charging,” popular and esteemed Christian leader or group or icon on a mission from God and don’t you dare get in the way.

Schaeffer’s demonstration of substantial healing (not perfection) in the area of helping hurting people may have something to do with L’Abri’s fourth founding principle—namely, that “we pray that God will send the workers of His choice to us, rather than pleading for workers in the usual channels.” Again, the point is not that the Schaeffers rejected normal employment practices per se, but rather that they felt led to rely on prayer in this area, at their moment of history, so that the existence of God could be demonstrated to Christian and non-Christian alike in a very practical and observable way. And, naturally, if Schaeffer understood that L’Abri workers were sent by the Lord, it followed that they had to be respected for who they are in their own right, and not be used up as fodder for a leader’s ego or an organization’s expansion.

Schaeffer aimed to be faithful to God and simply did not concern himself with creating a huge organization to be the “definitive voice” on Christian worldview, for example, or with striving for greater influence, in the greater service of the Lord (which Schaeffer saw as a pernicious temptation and rationalization for sin). Again, quite practically, and refreshingly, if God didn’t send the workers, well, then L’Abri would just have to be smaller—which is not quite the crisis it could be for someone whose ego feeds on growing numbers and increasing influence. Schaeffer wasn’t out to be “the best” at anything, or “branded” as anything, but just to be the best he could be. This meant he could afford to respect people, including fellow L’Abri workers, and refuse to debase seekers by reducing them to potential donors, or by reducing their struggles to anecdotal highlights for fundraising letters, or by humbly claiming some of them – especially celebrity converts — as scalps for his ministry, thereby using their celebrity to indirectly bring glory (and money) to his work.

This authenticity regarding people really set Schaeffer apart. Again, not as a perfect person by any means, but as real. And in contrast to some in leadership inside and outside the church and evangelicalism, he was a giver and not a taker. He was not looking for “alter egos” or for people whose energy and talents he could sap and then claim their work as his, whether “for the ministry” or “because the message will reach more people,” or for some other unfortunate instance in which the end justifies the means. For Schaeffer, there were “no little people,” a phrase taken from the title of one of his most important sermons and books. And I would suggest that that’s one of the reasons so many different kinds of people from around the world, after spending some time at L’Abri, where they could observe Schaeffer’s thinking and living in action, found his distinctive approach such a life-affirming alternative to much of the status quo.

Francis Schaeffer was different. But, as he himself no doubt understood, we don’t need more cookie-cutter Francis Schaeffers. Some may covet the mantle of Francis Schaeffer, but the secret is: There isn’t any such mantle. Rather, we need more individuals willing to embrace truth and then flesh out that truth with a measure of consistency across the whole of their lives,
including the nuts and bolts of our methods of ministry. When a person has said yes to demonstrating the existence of God in one’s life and work, then what happens on the side of a Swiss mountain, or in a fraternity house on a college campus, though largely unnoticed, may change everything.

Copyright J. Richard Pearcey 2005

Tex the Pontificator links to a story out of Denmark about violent immigrant gangs who are attacking Doormen in Copenhagen. It has reached a point where the Doormen are arming themselves with guns or clubs. Tex comments appropriately:

I was interested in the actions being taken by the Danish authorities:

Copenhagen police said this morning that the police would focus more on the doormen in the future, and added that the armed conflict between the doormen and immigrant gangs gave cause for concern. At the same time, the police force in the Danish capital is also going to do more to fight gang crime in Copenhagen, monitoring and registrating all immigrants who are gang members.

Somehow I think the action of the Doorman who disposed of his attacker in the above picture will prove to be a much more effective deterrent than the monitoring and registering of all immigrants who are gang members.