Sadly, Frankie seems to still be reveling in it. In this article, he is in full-bore, rabid hate mode, denouncing anyone who would dare to disagree with him, not least of whom is his father, who happens to not be around to defend himself from these slanders.
Here's a bit from Manifesto on how the government was "taking away" our country and turning it over to Liberals, codenamed by Dad as "this total humanistic way of thinking":
"The law, and especially the courts, is the vehicle to force this total humanistic way of thinking upon the entire population..."
I recommend to you Francis Schaeffer's book "A Christian Manifesto". Frankie gives no page number or reference for this quote, but fortunate "A Christian Manifesto" is not a large book, and it has an index, which helped in finding this particular quote. Here is a bit of context for it, found on page 49.
The law, and especially the courts, is the vehicle to force this total humanistic way of thinking upon the entire population. This is what has happened. The abortion law is a perfect example. The Supreme Court abortion ruling invalidated abortion laws in all fifty states, even though it seems clear that in 1973 the majority of Americans were against abortion. It did not matter. The Supreme Court arbitrarily ruled that abortion was legal, and overnight they overthrew the state laws and forced onto American thinking not only that abortion was legal, but that it was ethical. They, as an elite, thus forced their will on the majority, even though their ruling was arbitrary both legally and medically. Thus law and the courts became the vehicle for forcing a totally secular concept on the population.
In other parts of the book, Francis Schaeffer deals with how abortion is the product of secular, humanistic thinking. I'll not go into it here. But considering what he is saying in the paragraph quoted above, what is he saying that is so wrong? The Supreme Courth ruling was arbitrary, that has been freely admitted. It took a matter that should have been left to the states, and made it a federal matter. It was a horrible law, and that's not even considering the millions of children whose murders were given legal sanction through the ruling.
"Simply put, the Declaration of Independence states that the people, if they find that their basic rights are being systematically attacked by the state, have a duty to try and change that government, and if they cannot do so, to abolish it."
Well, at least Frankie has quoted a whole paragraph this time, though I think the context would again be helpful. From pages 127-128
The Declaration of Independence contains many elements of the Reformation thinking of Knox and Rutherford and should be considered carefully when discussing resistence. It speaks directly tot he responsibility of citizens concerning oppressive civil government.
After recognizing man's God-given absolute rights, the Declaration goes on to declare that whenever civil government becomes destructive to these rights, "it is the right of the people to alter and abolish it, and institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." The Founding Fathers, in the spirit of Lex Rex, cautioned in the Declaration of Independence that established governments should not be altered or abolished for "light and transient causes." But when there is a "long train of abuses and usurpations" designed to produce an oppressive, authoritarian state, "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government..."
Simply put, the Declaration of Independence states that the people, if they find that their basic rights are being systematically attacked by the state, have a duty to try and change that government, and if they cannot do so, to abolish it.
So, what did Francis Schaeffer write that is incorrect? Those words are in the Declaration of Independence, as is the concept.
"There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate. . . . A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion. . . . It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's law it abrogates its authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation."
This one may take an even longer excerpt. From pages 117-120
There comes a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate. The Christian is not to take the law into his own hands and become a law unto himself. But when all avenues to flight and protest have closed, force in the defensive posture is appropriate. This was the situation of the American Revolution. The colonists used force in defending themselves. Great Britain, because of its policy toward the colonies, was seen as a foreign power invading America. The colonists defended their homeland. As such, the American Revolution was a conservative counter-revolution. The colonists saw the British as the revolutionaries trying to overthrow the legitimate colonial governments.
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.
This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States--the issue of aboriton. Whiat is involved is the whole issue of the value of human life. A recent report indicaes that for every three live births, one child is aborted. Christians must come to the children's defense, and Christians must come to the defense of human life as such.
This defense should be carried out on at least four fronts:
First, we should aggressively support a human life bill or a constitutional amendment protecting unborn children.
Second, we must enter the courts seeking to overturn the Supreme Courts abortion decision.
Third, legal and politcal action should be taken against hospital and abortion clinics that perform abortions.
Fourth, the State must be made to feel the presence of the Christian community.
And from pages 131-132.
What does all this mean in practice to us today. I must say, I really am not sure all that it means to us in practice at this moment. To begin, however, it certainly means this: We have been utterly foolish in our concentration on bits and pieces, and in our complete failure to face the total world view that is rooted in a false view of reality. And we have not understood that this view of reality inevitably brings forth different and wrong and inhuman results in all of life. This is nowhere more certain than in law and government--where law and government are used by this false view of reality as a tool to force this false view and its results on everyone.
It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's Law it abrogates its authority. And out loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation to such a tyrannical usurping of power. I would emphasize at this point that Samuel Rutherford was not wrong, he was right; it was not only in the seventeenth century in Scotland where he was right; in was not only in 1776 where he was right; he is right in our century.
So, again, taking things in their context, what has the father said that the son should be so much against? Would Frankie Schaeffer say that physical force is never appropriate? Should Christians like Corrie Ten Boom have not helped Jewish people escape from the Nazis? If Christians should have resisted the Nazis in their murders of the Jewish people, why then should Christians be accepting of the murders of unborn children in the form of abortion? And if the rulers of a nation command what is against God's law, are Christians meekly to submit? Was Peter wrong to tell the rulers in his day that "We ought to obey God rather than men" when the rulers told him and the Apostles to stop preaching in the name of Jesus?
In other words, Dad's followers were told that (1) force is a legitimate weapon to use against an evil government; (2) America was like Hitler's Germany--because of legal abortion and of the forcing of "Humanism" on the population--and thus intrinsically evil; and (3) whatever would have been the "appropriate response" to stop Hitler was now appropriate to do here in America to stop our government, which Dad had just branded a "counterfeit state."
Frankie's entire hate-filled article is meant to somehow link the recent killings in Norway to the conservatives in the US--those who are against legalized abortion, gay marriage, socialized government funding, and the like. In looking at how Frankie absolutely butchers his father's words, one would think that his father was a flaming madman ready to reign down fire and anarchy and death, like the Norway killer.
Rather, here are Francis Schaeffer's own words, from page 126.
And fourth, we must say that speaking of civil disobedience is frightening because there are many kooky people around. People are always irresponsible in a fallen world. But we live in a special time of irresponsible people, and such people will in their unbalanced way tend to do the very opposite from considering the appropriate means at the appropriate time and place. Anarchy is never appropriate.
Francis Schaeffer was not a frothing-at-the-mouth hate-mongerer, unlike what his son seems to have become. If he advocated the use of force, it was entirely as a last resort, after all other attempts had failed, and there was no alternative, like what happened with the American colonies and what led up to the American Revolution. He certainly did not advocate bombing abortion clinics, political assassinations, or the killing of innocent people as political statements.
Francis Schaeffer had nothing to do with what happened in Norway, and it is to his son's everlasting shame that he would try to insinuate it solely for politcal reasons. Frankie Schaeffer has become one of those kooky people his father wrote about, an irresponsible and unbalanced person. His lies are evident here and now.