Ezekiel 33

In the last post, I used the title of a Francis Schaeffer book, How Shall We Then Live? to springboard to some thoughts about Blaise Pascal, one of the historical figures mentioned by Schaeffer, and one who in my opinion lived well.

But to be truthful, this was a misuse of Schaeffer's book title.

Superficially, it would make sense to take Schaeffer's title this way... 'In light of the conclusions to which this history of philosophy has led, how ought we to live?' But Schaeffer tells us (in the concluding Note) that the title comes directly from Ezekiel 33:10...

If our transgresions and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, how should we then live?

In its larger context, this verse is addressing the fact that the Israelites of Ezekiel's day had turned away from acknowledging, knowing, and obeying the one true God. Not only that, but they despised those like Ezekiel sent by God to warn them of the consequences of acting as though He weren't necessary to their existence. The conclusion "How should we then Live?" means "Why would God allow us to continue to live if we carry on without any reference to him?"

Schaeffer is drawing the analogy between our times and those of Ezekiel. We have come to the point where our culture (like that of Europe when Schaeffer was writing) is naturalistic, denying the existence of God, of immaterial minds, and souls, and of the immortality of the human spirit. Even though many in our culture claim to believe in God, in practice we live and reason as though He were not our Creator and Sustainer. Like the Israelites of old, we must either repent of these attitudes and behaviors or be willing to accept it if God reveals His wrath upon us or gives us over to our own passions (Rom. 1:18-32).

Schaeffer's note ends,

This book is written in the hope that this generation may turn from the greatest of wickednesses, the placing of any created thing in the place of the Creator, and that this generation may get its feet out of the paths of death and may live.

Living Well

As I shared in the last post, in his book How Should We Then Live?, Francis Schaeffer recounts the history of the West, identifying key individuals whose contributions in philosophy, art, science, and theology affected the worldviews of their own and subsequent generations. Schaeffer did all this without speaking directly to how well these historical figures lived. While reading, though, I couldn’t help musing about which of these individuals from the past can themselves be judged to have lived well.

To be adjudged as having lived well, one’s contribution to the “great conversation” of Western thought (whether an artist, scientist, philosopher, or theologian) should be recognized as a positive one. One’s worldview should be deemed—even from our vantage point—accurate, or at least competitive in the marketplace of ideas. Additionally, one’s life and worldview should cohere, which in turn should mean that one’s life had both purpose and peace (i.e., inner peace, not freedom from turmoil exterior to oneself). On these few criteria, most of the shapers of Western history cannot be deemed to have lived well. Moreover, those that do seem to have lived well shared a Christian worldview.

Of these, I could pick several to contemplate more closely, including Johann Sebastian Bach or William Wilberforce. As a scientist, however, I like to think of Blaise Pascal as one who lived well. Pascal laid the foundations for calculus, and contributed to our understanding of geometry and probability. He invented the adding machine/calculator (which is probably the contribution for which he now has a computer language named after him), the hydraulic press, and the vacuum cleaner. He performed experiments on air pressure and vacuums, and made the first barometer. He also designed the first rapid transit system. Pascal is recognized as one of the founders of modern science; he diligently practiced the scientific method, and was the first to recognize that scientific theories could be falsified but never fully verified. He recognized the power of science but also its inability to make us wise or happy or good. For this reason, he spent most of the later years of his short life reflecting on theology and writing as a Christian apologist.

His quality of life was a direct result of the clarity of Pascal’s understanding of “the human enigma.” For him, an adequate worldview required a satisfactory explanation for both mankind’s unspeakable wickedness and his nearly inexplicable goodness. He found the only reasonable answer in Christianity, with its twin doctrines of the Imago Dei and Original Sin. Man was created in the image of God; hence his possibilities for greatness and virtue. But mankind is fallen; hence his propensity for depravity. This worldview provided the meaning and consistency that enabled Blaise Pascal to live well.

How Should We Then Live?

I had occasion last year to reread one of Francis Schaeffer's classic books, How Should We Then Live? In it, Schaeffer traces the history of Western philosophy (and its embodiment in the arts) up to the present. It includes, naturally enough, a sobering (but accurate) portrayal of modernity and of our present postmodern culture, both of which have lost the historical Christian worldview. (To paraphrase Pastor Ken last week paraphrasing Schaeffer, 'Whereas Christianity used to be the big dog in American culture, we followers of Jesus are now the fleas on the dog.')

Nonetheless, this book of Schaeffer's was one of hope. This hope was born of a certainty that the Christian worldview is the only rational one, the one that best explains reality, is most logically consistent, best promotes practical consequences, and alone provides meaning and purpose. His book, then, was (on one level) a somewhat dispassionate account of how this uniquely rational worldview has come to be lost (in the culture at large). In the concluding Note, he wrote,

Christians do not need to be in the majority to influence society

(that is, to bring to bear on society this forgotten worldview). Schaeffer’s life proved this, and served as a shining example of how clear worldview thinking and love of fellow humans can make a follower of Christ salt and light even in this postmodern generation.

Francis Schaeffer

At Antioch (my church in Bend, Oregon),* Pastor Ken Wytsma is in the middle of his annual two-week sermon biography series. This year, he's doing Francis Schaeffer, one of my favorite Christian apologists.

For Schaeffer, the ultimate apologetic for Christianity was loving others. Oh, he could reason with the best of folks--he recognized Christianity as the uniquely coherent and explanatory worldview and spent the latter part of his life defending it to seekers and skeptics alike.

But he also recognized that without the love of Jesus evident in one's life no amount or quality of argument was sufficient. This led him--with his wife Edith--to open L'Abri, their chalet home in the Swiss Alps, to strangers of all sorts, especially young, disillusioned intellectuals looking for meaning in life. Through their hospitality and concern, the Schaeffers earned the right to speak truth into the lives of uncounted folks who found in the L'Abri community the answers--and the love--for which they were searching.

At Antioch, we, too, are taking seriously Jesus' love for the "least of these." It was fitting (on a Sunday on which the sermon was about Francis schaeffer) that our Director of Compassion and Advocacy, Courtney Christenson, shared with us a very tangible example of this. As part of our three-week Human Rights Series (back in November), we began supporting Ransom Wear, an organization that helps Nepalese women escape sex slavery (in India) and rebuild their lives. An integral part of their program is houses at strategic border crossings where Ransom Wear personnel help prevent young girls (often sold by a male family member) from crossing into India where an unspeakable life of sex slavery would otherwise await them. What Courtney shared with us was that this aspect of the ministry would have had to have been shut down, but for the support that Antioch folks have provided.

This is just one of the ways in which we, as a community of Christians, are attempting to follow Jesus. Like the great apologist Francis Schaeffer, we can all recognize what an effective apologetic this sort of compassion is.




*Antioch is moving this Sunday from the Regal Cinemas (where we've been since our birth in October 2006) to Summit High School (with a single service at 10:00).