I’m reading through ‘escape from Reason’, a small book by Francis Schaeffer that’s been sitting on my shelf for a few months. I’m surprised at how readable and insightful it is – no doubt there’s some dubious historical scholarship in there, but plenty of gems too.
“when a man says that thinking in terms of an antithesis is wrong, what he is really doing is using the concept of antithesis to deny antithesis. That is the way God has made us and there is no other way to think.”
and another one which strikes me as profoundly insightful, p. 77:
“If we think we are escaping some of the pressures of the modern debate by playing down propositional Scripture and simply putting the word ‘Jesus’ or ‘experience’ upstairs [[in the realm of the non-verifiable/non-rational]], we must face this question: What difference is there between doing this and doing what the secular world has done in its semantic mysticism, or what the New Theology has done? At the very least the door has been opened for man to think it is the same thing. Certainly men in the next generation will tend to make it the same thing.
If what is placed upstairs is separated from rationality, if the Scriptures are not discussed as open to verification where they touch the cosmos and history, why should one then accept the evangelical upstairs any more than the upstairs of the modern radical theology? …”