Talk:Francis Schaeffer/Archive 2

Schaeffer and the Christian Right

I appreciate you taking out that whole paragraph, Chip, that should probably be in the history of the Christian Right article instead of with the Francis Schaeffer bio. I do however believe it is important to leave in the last part of the previous paragraph. Dooyeweerd was important to Schaeffer and Kuyper as well. You'll see why if you read that article by Larry Wilson. Schaeffer was very Kuyperian in many ways. Thank you for your consideration in this matter --Awinger48 20:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Note to Awinger48, your recent edits have been outrageous insertions of your own personal POV in a way that minimizes criticsim by published authors. You have done this through the insertion of your own opinions riding along behind cited material. Your role as a Wiki editor is not to confront every criticsm of Schaeffer with a mountain of laudatory material and comments that undermine the criticism of published authors. Please stop it.--Cberlet 22:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Note to Cberlet: Your recent Blanket Revert was an extreme way of insuring that your own personal POV goes unchallenged. Your role as a Wiki editor is not to insert every criticism of Schaeffer that you can find that will undermine the reputation of an exemplary published author. Your comments above beg the question – If you are going to continue to find and then insert new and different quotes that are inflammatory to a published author like Schaeffer, who died in 1984, who is going to be allowed to defend him, and to what extent will that person be allowed to defend him? I don’t have 25 or 30 years experience writing like you do Chip, and I’m not a "published author" like you are Chip. I’m also new on Wikipedia. But it’s plain as the nose on your face that Schaeffer needs to be defended here. This much loved published author also needs to be defended in the Dominionism article and anywhere else where someone is inserting inflammatory remarks. Right now it’s me, and after me if I should leave, someone else will come and defend him. There’s just too many people who love Schaeffer Chip. He is not the man you picture him to be. And because I love Schaeffer and the God he served, the following is not a sarcastic remark – God bless you Sir, and have a good weekend :-) --Awinger48 21:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The role of a Wiki editor is to write NPOV entries, not "defend" a person. --Cberlet 03:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

On Defending

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)

God bless you ma'am and thank you :-) --Awinger48 11:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Note to Lini. I have collaboratively worked on this page in the past with a variety of editors across a range of political and religious viewpoints. I find the self-impressed and self-righteous rhetoric of Awinger48 to be disruptive, and in the tradition of persons who are so lacking in humility as to give Chrisiantity a bad name. I am a practicing Christian, and find the lack of humility by [User:Awinger48|Awinger48]]to be un-Biblical and un-Christian. It certainly does nothing to improve Wikipedia. Thanks for asking.--Cberlet 03:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

In reference to the note above to Lini by Cberlet at 03:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC) and in accordance with the statement from Wikipedia No Personal Attacks Policy, "If you are personally attacked, you should ask the attacker to stop and note this policy," I am asking Cberlet to stop the personal attacks on me. --Awinger48 09:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving On?

OK, I've reread the prior discussions on this page, and what you've called self-impressed and self-righteous, I read more as "eager", "enthusiastic", "strongly interested in this article". I do see invitations to discuss differences of opinion. Here's what I'd suggest (things we all already know, but worth restating for purposes of discussion) - the objective of this talk page is to work together for the good of the article. The three of us, all as acknowledged practicing Christians (I am one too), have an additional objective - to "bear with one another and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another." (from the book of Colossians-3:13) So, in spite of personal feelings about another editor, I'd encourage you to deal with each subsequent edit on its individual merits. If it helps, I'll point out that I've seen how maybe there could have been some stresses built up in this situation - Awinger (Allan, per his user page), has had a strong interest in editing this article recently, and time in which to do so. Chip has been busy and maybe has felt like changes were made faster than he could keep up with. Maybe, going forward, we could set past bad feelings aside and "start with a clean slate" - continue to discuss changes on the talk page, especially be courteous about not removing or reverting (except of course, in the case of obvious vandalism), without an attempt at discussion, wait a reasonable amount of time for a reply (5-7 days is consistent with SOP elsewhere on Wikipedia), remember that, if one has been away or busy, and comes back, it is still possible to retroactively address individual edits on the discussion page and work out compromises where appropriate. Respectfully, Lini 14:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

(Note: I have been using your first names, to be on an equal par, my actual first name is Sue, but I usually go by Lini on WP, addressing me by either is fine.)

Here is a practical exercise (challenge?) in working together. This talk page is getting long (and I've exacerbated it by my tendency to verbosity (sorry)). Can we come to a consensus about which of the older discussions could be archived? --Lini 14:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive the whole thing.--Cberlet 20:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive the whole thing.--Awinger48 09:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've archived items through 10 September 2006, everything except this last heading (Schaeffer and the Christian Right). Once any ongoing discussion here is completed, I may archive this section as well; it is lengthy, and its archival may also be symbolic of the fresh start that I look for. --Lini 13:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Admins have asked me to use "Cberlet" when editing, and to be cautious in citing my own work. However it is unavoidable to factor into this discussion the reality that I have published material about Schaeffer, and am seen as a critic. I do not think that a few paragraphs about Schaeffer, Dominionism, and the Christian Right need to dominate the page. What happens here goes in two directions. One is that fans of Schaeffer appear and protest any critical material; or fans of Schaeffer appear and bury the page in objections to the few critical paragraphs in the form of lengthy quotes and essays.

For example, see this version of the page with limited critical text. Short and to the point. No big deal.

I have a problem with the way the page has been re-structured. Many critical comments are now encapsulated in WP:OR WP:POV mini-essays that seek to undermine every criticism. The result is that the page now appears to be an apologia for the theology and memory of Schaeffer, which is fine as a religious polemic, but not appropriate for a Wikipedia entry. The arguments concerning Dominionism and Reconstructionism by Schaeffer's critics are simply misrepresented now, as are the arguments about Schaeffer's role in stimulating the new Christian Right. Too much of the page now is a POV defense of Schaeffer against critics, instead of a few sentences of critical material with a handful of links. 30% of this page could simply be deleted.--Cberlet 15:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't delete that 30%

Here's why.

Before the discussion page was archived I counted the lines of text down my screen. There were 385 lines of text. There were 234 lines that were written because of the discussions about Dominionism. That is about 60 % of the text. The Schaeffer article was initiated on 03 Feb 2003 by an unidentified editor. It stayed relatively small in size (50 lines) until 14 Feb 2005, two years later. Then the following paragraph was added:

"Schaeffer is credited with helping spark a return to political activism among Protestant evangelicals and fundamentalists in the late 1970s and early 1980s, especially around the issue of abortion. He is considered by some to be the godfather of contemporary Dominionism, although he himself never embraced Dominion Theology."

That paragraph sat there and the article more or less continued to stay the same size until 22 June 2005, four months. But then someone disagreed with the Dominionism. The article began to grow and the Discussion Page was born the same day. Ever since then the article, I agree, has grown in a negative way, but in an unavoidable way. It has become part of the Culture Wars that we are all influenced by in some way. But that Culture War on Wikipedia is expanding and bigger words than Dominionism are being used.

One editor was advised by another on the Christian Reconstructionism Talk Page that the following articles should be treated "as a package where claims documented and cited on one page can be referred to on another, otherwise we will end up with much redundancy and endless disputes: Christian Right, Francis Schaeffer, Dominionism, Dominion Theology, Rousas John Rushdoony, Christian Reconstructionism, Neo-fascism and Religion."

What are we who are on the other side of the Culture War concerning Schaeffer supposed to think and do when the following concepts are put forth:

• In the Neo-fascism and Religion article author Karen Armstrong sees a potential for fascism in Christian Reconstructionism and authors Berlet and Lyons write that the same movement is a new form of clerical fascist politics.
• In the Christian Reconstructionism article the same authors are referenced in the same way.
• In the Christian Right article, authors Diamond and Clarkson are cited for connecting Reconstructionism to Dominionism.
• In the Rousas John Rushdoony article Rushdoony is of course linked to Dominion Theology because he is a Reconstructionist.
• In the Dominion Theology article, which is called a “sub-article” to the Dominionism article, Christian Reconstructionism is seen as the most intellectually grounded brands of Dominion Theology and is also seen as an example of Dominionism.
• In the Dominionism article Dominionism is seen as being started in part by Schaeffer. Schaeffer is seen as being one of the founders of the Christian Right which is said by some to be a Dominionist movement. But here’s the kicker. Schaeffer is seen as being influenced by Rushdoony and in the paragraph where this is written Schaeffer is pictured to being even very close to Rushdoony and they "emphasize the similarities and overlapping influence of Schaeffer and the Reconstructionists, on the formation of the Christian Right." There is very little written to the contrary about Schaeffer. But there is a quote from a journalist warning against making similarities between Christian conservatives and fascists. That warning is neutralized in the article by quoting another author who does note fascist tendancies in Christian Right Dominionism but she does not consider the Christian Right to be Christian. There is also a template used on the page called Political Ideologies. The only one listed on the template that comes close to anything in the article is Fascism.
• Then in the Francis Schaeffer article Schaeffer is of course connected with Dominionism. Attempts are also made to connect Schaeffer with Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism. But there are other things written as well, from the other side of this Wikipedia Culture War, that give balance to these accusations from his critics.

The old Discussion Page began because someone called Schaeffer "the godfather of contemporary Dominionism." But the original paragraph included "although he himself never embraced Dominion Theology." That is true. He also never embraced Christian Reconstructionism either. Therefore Schaeffer is NOT a Dominionist. But it appears in the articles that talk about Schaeffer that he’s being pictured as almost in bed with Rushdoony. Then because of what is being written in the other articles listed above in sections that specifically talk about Rushdoony and Christian Reconstruction, Schaeffer, for all intensive purposes, is being called a Neofascist or a clerical fascist. Is that WP:NPOV or are those paragraphs also WP:OR or WP:POV essays followed up with citations from published authors who to the most part are on one side of this Wikipedia Culture War? What is a balanced article? I sure hope we can come to some middle ground somewhere. Thankyou Lini for helping our situation, and thanyou Cberlet for your continued willingness to talk :-) --Awinger48 19:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are reading much into the articles you cite that simply is not there, Awinger48. For example, on several of the pages you cite, it is made clear that Dominionism and Reconstructionism are not the same thing. See: Dominion Theology for example:

Dominionism, Dominion Theology, and Christian Reconstructionism are not the same thing. A nested subset chart looks like this:

Triumphalism

Dominionism

Dominion Theology

Theonomy

Christian Reconstructionism

The specific meanings are different in important ways, although the terms have been used in a variety of conflicting ways in popular articles, especially on the Internet.

That text is quite clear. Also, on several pages there is material that discusses the pros and cons of linking Schaeffer too closely to Rushdoony, Reconstructionism, Dominionism as practiced today, and the Christian Right.

This page has become a detailed defense of Schaeffer on all of these points, when all it should do, is briefly mention the criticisms by reputable published sources, and provide a brief response--also by reputable published sources. I understand that you reject these criticisms of Schaeffer, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish your private essay in his defense, which is what I see happening on this entry, even though I am willing to accept in good faith that this was not your intent.--Cberlet 21:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Focus on something specific

Being very specific can sometimes be helpful. Suggestion - before Chip deletes any text which he finds objectionable, and before Allan makes further content edits regarding the "Schaeffer and the Christian Right" subject matter, let's be specific about what is objectionable. But, let's start small. Chip, could you please select one paragraph out of the 30% in the article that you think could/should "go", with a brief explanation of what you see as POV or OR in that paragraph. Given such specifics, then it could be determined if Allan can see how you might view that particular content as POV or OR. Depending on what he thinks, there are various ways it could go from there, but, at least it is a starting point. And, maybe, if we start by addressing one paragraph, the issues that you have with others may be similar, so that a resolution found for the first case might be applied to others. Hope this suggestion helps, Lini 04:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

First, I want to again thank you Lini for working with us here. Second I appreciate the suggestion that we should start small. Third I appreciate Cberlet and his comments that on this Discussion Page things should be kept short and to the point. All three of us have normal lives in addition to our participation on Wikipedia and all three of us need to keep a proper balance between the two. So, out of respect for what Lini is trying to do here, and Cberlet’s wishes, I’ll keep my remarks short and with sources. But I will also reference other articles like that editor suggested when he listed this article as part of a package.

In the Dominionism article it is written that "Both reporter Chris Hedges and Frederick Clarkson, author of Eternal Hostility: the Struggle between Theocracy and Democracy, considers dominionism one of the defining issues of the culture wars."

The reference listed for Chris Hedges is an article by him entitled, "The Christian Right and the Rise of American Fascism." There’s the "F" word again, connected to Dominionism. But what I wanted to emphasize here is that because we are debating over this larger issue of Dominionism, we are in the middle of the culture wars just as much as anybody else out there.

Now Cberlet has had years to fine tune his position. I’m the rookie here. So let me change the focus a bit in support of the idea that we are engaged in a culture war here and it is not a discussion between what some have defined as Dominionism and fans of Schaeffer defending him in essays. What is being debated here is one ideology that has their definition of what they call Dominionism and another ideology that is based on The Lordship of Christ Over All of Life of which Schaeffer’s writings are part of the contemporary intellectual foundation.

If this culture war could be recognized in the Schaeffer article, and in the other articles that are part of the package, then we could maybe have balanced articles. One side could write a very brief summary of their ideology with citations to more expanded explanations and the other side could do the same thing. Then we wouldn’t be throwing rocks at each other. We would be coexisting in peace. Maybe we could just keep it as one section and have it WP:Protected so that others wouldn’t jump in and start the war all over again. How about that?

Oh yes, one other thing. Read the Culture war article. You'll find the name Gramsci. Then go to the Neo-fascism and religion article where this article is referenced:

"Globalization, Theocracy and the New Fascism: Taking the Right's Rise to Power Seriously" by Carl Davidson (Use this link. The one in the article doesn't work.) (There's that "F" word again.)

Then find Gramsci again. It is said that the Christian Right is using his methods now and those who are fighting the Christian Right should use them too. Also, I think internet link #3 in that article is not working like it should. Someone might want to fix both.

In any case your consideration in the matter at hand is greatly appreciated :-) --Awinger48 12:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am really sorry, but it is just this type of rambling response that I find incomprehensible. Gramscism in this context refers to the concept of "cultural hegemony," which simply means that if you win the Culture War, the political and social system will follow. This is what Paul Weyrich has been saying for years. It has nothing to do with Schaeffer being tied to fascism. I refuse to be held responsible for entries on other pages nor their cites. It is unfair for me to be asked to respond to a connect-the-dots conspiracy theory about this and other pages being part of the Culture War. On this page, I would agree that claining Schaeffer is a fascist would be absurd. I am not responsible for articles that use a garbage can approach to analyzing the Christian Right, and which claim all persons in the Christian Right are dominionists, and all dominionists are Reconstructionists, and all Reconstructionsist are fascists--therefore all persons in the Christian Right are fascists. Writers who publish such claims are using a fallacy of logic, displaying their own ignorance, and as a result I think their claims are incompetent, and cetianly not reliable. However, it is true that some claims as these have been published, and we cannot simply ignore them here on Wikipedia. This is not the place to fight the Culture War--it is the place to report on it in an NPOV way.

In response to the request by Lini, I contend that this entire section I reproduce below is essentially a WP:OR essay, sometimes duplicates other text, and should be deleted and replaced with one paragraph:

The name of the book is intended to position its thesis as a Christian answer to The Communist Manifesto and the Humanist Manifestos of 1933 and 1973. Schaeffer's diagnosis is that the decline of Western Civilization is due to society having become increasingly pluralistic, resulting in a shift "away from a world view that was at least vaguely Christian in people's memory ... toward something completely different." Schaeffer argues that there is a philosophical struggle between the people of God, and the secular humanists.

In a sermon also titled "A Christian Manifesto," Schaeffer defines secular humanism as the worldview where "man is the measure of all things," and in the book he claims that critics of the Christian Right miss the mark by confusing the "humanist religion" with humanitarianism, the humanities, or love of humans. He describes the conflict with secular humanism as a battle in which "these two religions, Christianity and humanism, stand over against each other as totalities." He writes that the decline of commitment to objective truth that he perceives in the various institutions of society is "not because of a conspiracy, but because the church has forsaken its duty to be the salt of the culture." Schaeffer explains:

A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state and hidden his Jewish neighbors from the German SS Troops. The government had abrogated its authority, and it had no right to make any demands.

He then suggests that similar tactics be used to stop abortion. But Schaeffer makes it very clear that in these tactics there is no place for any kind of a theocracy:

State officials must know that we are serious about stopping abortion,...First, we must make definite that we are in no way talking about any kind of theocracy. Let me say that with great emphasis. Witherspoon, Jefferson, the American Founders had no idea of a theocracy. That is made plain by the First Amedment, and we must continually emphasize the fact that we are not talking about some kind, or any kind, of a theocracy.

Schaeffer writing this statement is one of the main reasons for the criticism from Christian Reconstructionists which will be discussed next.

I hope we can focus on this one section.--Cberlet 14:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also hope that we can focus on this one section as a whole (A Christian Manifesto) and include in the discussion the following which is the first part of the section:

One of Francis Schaeffer's most influential books is his 1982 A Christian Manifesto. Critics such as Sara Diamond and Frederick Clarkson have traced the activism of numerous key figures in the Christian Right to the influence of Francis Schaeffer. According to Diamond: "The idea of taking dominion over secular society gained widespread currency with the 1981 publication of...Schaeffer's book A Christian Manifesto. The book sold 290,000 copies in its first year, and it remains one of the movement's most frequently cited texts."

Diamond summarizes the book and its importance to the movement, which she and Clarkson call Dominionism:

In A Christian Manifesto, Schaeffer's argument is simple. The United States began as a nation rooted in Biblical principles. But as society became more pluralistic, with each new wave of immigrants, proponents of a new philosophy of secular humanism gradually came to dominate debate on policy issues. Since humanists place human progress, not God, at the center of their considerations, they pushed American culture in all manner of ungodly directions, the most visible results of which included legalized abortion and the secularization of the public schools. At the end of -- A Christian Manifesto, Schaeffer calls for Christians to use civil disobedience to restore Biblical morality, which explains Schaeffer's popularity with groups like Operation Rescue. Randall Terry has credited Schaeffer as a major influence in his life.

With that in mind I am going to hold off on this discussion. Cberlet was away for a few days not too long ago. Now it's my turn to be away for a few days because of other obligations :-) --Awinger48 22:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Here I am trying to pin down specifics again, now in regards to timelines. First of all, I agree that starting with the section on A Christian Manifesto is a good idea. Chip, how much of a feeling of urgency do you have about working on this section? I'd much prefer to leave things as they are until Allan can rejoin the discussion again, in a few days. But, if you would not be willing to leave the article as it currently reads for a few more days, or if we wait until, say, Thursday or Friday (10/12 or 10/13) and Allan is not yet available, I'd be willing to start working together with you on it, with the intention of Allan providing further input when he is back. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Lini 00:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with waiting a few days. Simple courtesy.--Cberlet 03:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Lini 04:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A few days ago I was using the term Culture Wars. I used it because the same quote in two wiki articles said that, according to Frederick Clarkson, dominionism was one of the defining issues of the culture wars. Fred Clarkson is a friend of Cberlet. So I thought that Cberlet had written the quote and that the term was one that was okay with Cberlet. Then I found out that it was not and that another editor had written about Clarkson (FeloniousMonk 23 April 2006). I honestly did not know until then that Culture Wars is a term mostly used by Paul Weyrich and Pat Buchanan in defining the issues that they are basically warring against.

One side of this war uses the term Pro-Life instead of Anti-Abortion. The other side uses Pro-Choice instead of Pro-Abortion. This is part of the language of the struggle around the issue of abortion. Abortion was one of Francis Schaeffer’s primary issues as well. Schaeffer is recognized by many from both sides as the founder of the contemporary anti-abortion (or Pro-Life) movement. One of his works that helped to define that movement was A Christian Manifesto. It explains the legal responsibilities of Christians as they face this issue.

My question to Cberlet is this: For language purposes in this discussion, if Culture Wars is not the acceptable term to use for what this discussion is about, then what is an acceptable term? An observation by Lini on this would also be appreciated since she has been recognized as a neutral (or mediating) party in this discussion. I’ll be back again later. Thank you both for your courtesy in waiting for me to return :-) --Awinger48 11:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Dominionism is a triumphalist tendency to assert that God has given Christians a mandate to take over and run secular society. Dominionism ranges from soft forms, such as the Family Research Council, to hard forms, such as Christian Reconstructionism. The Culture War is the name used by Buchanan and Weyrich to define the struggle over social issues between traditional or orthodox Christians and secularists and humanists. Schaeffer clearly suggested the need for such a struggle, and Schaeffer's writings were, in part, a way to define a different path to restoring a Godly nation than that proposed by early Christian Reconstructionist writiers such as Rushdoony.

forgive me, but I don't think the issue is specific words or phrases, and to be blunt, I find your long essays here on obscure matters to be highly frustrating. The problem with the page is that you and others have rewritten it as a apologia for Schaeffer, rather than a brisk, easy to read, encyclopedia entry that covers a variety of views including those of critics. I would prefer to try to edit text rather than have these long, time-consuming-and frankly annoying exchanges. Could we please, please, just edit text?--Cberlet 14:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you go ahead and put together a complete draft of what you think should be in "A Christian Manifesto" section. I'll take a look tomorrow or whenever you have it done and we'll see if it should be edited at all. Thank you for your patience :-) --Awinger48 00:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I am going to have to vanish for a few days to finish a major report, ironically, on the Culture Wars. Be back on Tuesday.  :-) --Cberlet 00:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I made an attempt at rewriting Christian Manifesto & Christian Right. I still think the section is too long and redundant, but now it reads in a more logical sequence, and editing will be easier.--Cberlet 21:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this first draft. This is not an easy task. Here are a few comments:

• The suggestion that Lini made about starting small was a good one. Let’s stay with working on the whole Christian Manifesto (CM) section and leave the Christian Right section for later.
• The CM section should be just before the Reconstructionist section because that last quote by Schaeffer connects to why they were highly critical of Schaeffer.
• What critics (Diamond/Clarkson) say about the book should be considered in the edit of the whole CM section instead of being in a separate section away from what has been written about the book.

In the interest of brevity I’ll stop there for now. I hope that this is a help. --Awinger48 00:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it was not helpful. What is the point of editing if redundant material cannot be replaced with shorter text; and movement of text is objected to? The two sections were mixed together and redundant. Pick one section and edit it. Please do NOT write essays about what your thoughts are. The point here is to compromise in editing actual text. It is not constructive to suggest that you want it the way it was. What's the point of that? I was unable to edit the sections apart from each other. There was too much redundant and badly cited and factually dubious material. The material on dominionism and Reconstructionism was exceptionally badly written, POV, uncited, wrongly cited, and misprepresented. That's my contribution to the discussion.--Cberlet 01:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Link to WP Essay on Academic and Artistic Biographies

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)

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)

Edits to Christian Right/Christian Manifesto - Oct 18

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" ."

"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" "

"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. "

"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.

"Schaeffer argued that Christians have a duty to live out "the Lordship of Christ in the totality of life" 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)

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)

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)