Francis A. Schaef fer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought and Life Stephen J. Wellum

Stephen J. Wellum is an associate Why Study the Life and Thought be constantly written to apply the professor of Christian Theology at The of Francis Schaeffer?1 unchanging Word to a changing world, so Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. There are two ways that this question we need to study contemporary individu- Dr. Wellum received his Ph.D. degree could be asked. First, why study any his- als who can better help us to respond in theology from Trinity Evangelical torical figure? And second, why specifi- faithfully, without compromise, to Divinity School, and has also taught cally reflect on the life and thought of present-day challenges that confront the theology at the Associated Canadian Francis Schaeffer? After all, what makes church. Theological Schools and Northwest him so important to reflect on in contrast But why study Francis Schaeffer? The Baptist Theological College and Semi- to other people? answer to this second question is that nary in Canada. He has contributed The simple answer to the first question there is probably no single figure that has to several publications and a collection is that we want to learn and be challenged affected and impacted evangelicalism in of essays on theology and worldview by Christian men and women who have the latter half of the twentieth century issues. gone before us. In Scripture the theme of more than Francis Schaeffer. For this people serving as role models for us, both reason alone, we need to take him seri- positively and even negatively, is abun- ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting dantly clear. Paul encourages Timothy to on the impact of Francis Schaeffer on follow his example, as he follows Christ evangelicalism, says this about his life and (see 2 Tim 3:10-13). Hebrews 11 records work: for us the “Hall of Fame” of faith in order to challenge us to press on in our devo- When Francis Schaeffer first appeared on the American scene in tion and service to the Lord. As we exam- 1965, evangelicals hardly knew what ine the lives of godly men and women, to make of him. He was 53 years old. both their strengths and weaknesses, we His Christian faith had been formed in the furnace of the fundamental- learn how better to serve our Lord today. ist-modernist controversies of the And often as we do so, we are awakened 1930s, and he was a card-carrying from our spiritual lethargy by unique member of the impeccably funda- mentalist Bible Presbyterian Church. servants of the Lord who sought, in their He defended passionately the idea lives, to serve the Lord with their whole of the inerrancy of Scripture, a doc- trine that had already seen some heart. slippage in evangelical circles. Furthermore, it is important to study Yet this was no ordinary funda- contemporary historic figures as well as mentalist preacher. He and his wife, Edith, had lived for ten years in a those of the more distant past. Why? For student commune they had started the simple reason that contemporary in the Swiss Alps. When he lectured, people help us better to respond to the he wore an alpine hiking outfit— knickers, knee socks, walking shoes. specific issues and challenges of our own By 1972 he had added to his already day, not just the issues of a previous era. singular appearance long hair and a In this sense there is a parallel with the white tufted goat’s-chin beard. Most curious of all, he seldom quoted doing of theology. For just as theology must from the Bible. He was more apt to 4 talk about the philosophical impor- in his desire to have ordinary people tance of Henry Miller (then regarded understand the great issues of phi- as the most pornographic writer in losophy and theology and their American letters). implications for ordinary living.3 During the next two decades the Schaeffers organized a multiple- thrust ministry that reshaped Amer- In addition, we may provide further ican evangelicalism. Perhaps no justification for our investigation of intellectual save C. S. Lewis affected Francis Schaeffer by noting his signifi- the thinking of evangelicals more profoundly; perhaps no leader of cance and impact in three important the period save Billy Graham left areas: the personal, theological, and a deeper stamp on the movement as social.4 In terms of the personal, Schaef- a whole. Together the Schaeffers gave currency to the idea of inten- fer’s initial impact was not made insti- tional Christian community, prod- tutionally, that is, through academic, ded evangelicals out of their cultural educational institutions, or even through ghetto, inspired an army of evan- gelicals to become serious scholars, the publishing industry. Rather, his great- encouraged women who chose est influence was made more indirectly, roles as mothers and homemakers, mentored the leaders of the New through his own personal contact with Christian Right, and solidified individuals whom he came to know and popular evangelical opposition to whose lives he changed. His influence, in abortion.2 other words, was not being part of the evangelical establishment, but instead In a similar vein, Harold O. J. Brown sums being quite independent of it. For Schaef- up the influence and impact of Francis fer, personal evangelism and discipleship Schaeffer by stating the following: were no cliché. It was through his life and There is no other important Chris- ministry at L’Abri in Switzerland, far tian thinker of our era who has removed from America, that he and his tackled as many fundamental intel- wife, Edith, touched the lives of countless lectual, philosophical, and theologi- cal issues as Schaeffer did. But he did numbers of individuals—many of whom this not in an effort to construct a would later become key evangelical lead- comprehensive philosophy of his- ers. Certainly, for those of us who aspire tory like Oswald Spengler (The Decline of the West) or Arnold Toyn- to influence men and women for the gos- bee (A Study of History). Even when pel, it would be wise for us to learn les- dealing with the big issues that were his specialty, Schaeffer treated them sons from the life of such a man and to not as theoretical problems to be fit- discover afresh the importance of the per- ted into a comprehensive world sonal touch in our interaction with people.5 view, but as questions that indi- vidual persons needed to answer in Theologically, we may note Schaeffer’s order to find meaning in their lives. significance by the fact that he was instru- There are not many Christian mental in calling evangelicals to once thinkers who have dealt with as many of the great issues of theology again take seriously key truths that were and philosophy as Schaeffer did, tending to be de-emphasized or even and no one else has so revealed their being denied. In particular, Schaeffer relevance to us. Schaeffer treated them as vital to the understanding challenged evangelicalism to re-assert its of our own life and its meaning, commitment to the concept of truth, or as rather than as abstractions reserved for the advanced seminar. Schaeffer he stated it—“true truth”—in light of a was unusual among deep thinkers growing trend in academic theology, the 5 church, and the general culture towards instrumental in mobilizing sleepy evan- a denial of truth and a full-orbed plural- gelicals to action, and challenging them ism. That is why he championed, literally to get involved in the political arena. It is to his death-bed, the need to affirm with- not an exaggeration to say that the rise of out equivocation the full authority and Crisis Pregnancy Centers, the Christian inerrancy of Scripture as well as such cru- Action Council, and even the Moral cial issues as: the historicity of Genesis Majority, were directly linked to the influ- 1-11, the doctrine of creation, the central- ence of Francis Schaeffer. What were his ity of the doctrine of God, and the exclu- reasons for social action? Were they valid? sivity of Jesus Christ as the way, the truth, And what may we learn from him as we and the life.6 It is also why he stood so seek to be obedient to our Lord in our day? strongly against the theology of neo- But there is one last reason why we need orthodoxy7 that was beginning to be to study the life and thought of Francis embraced by some evangelicals because Schaeffer and it is this: the mixed reaction he believed that if it were accepted it to him from evangelical scholars provides would undercut the truth and veracity of a window by which we may view an ever the gospel. Probably today more than any increasingly divided evangelicalism. Lane other day we need to think through the Dennis, in commenting on various critics theological challenges that Schaeffer left of Schaeffer’s thought who have called it us with. Was he right? And if so, are there everything from “sophomoric bombast,” lessons today that we may learn from “simplistic,” and “atrophied” to a “puer- him as we attempt to stand for the truth ile concatenation of unsupported judg- of the gospel? ments,” notes that “one doesn’t usually Socially, Schaeffer is also an important hear these kind of adjectives in polite or figure for our consideration. In the 1970s scholarly conversation; apparently Schaef- when evangelicals were doing little on the fer has touched a raw nerve.”10 Interest- social front, he almost single-handedly ingly, Dennis observes that this kind of challenged millions of evangelicals to take reaction seems to come mostly from aca- an active role in shaping their society and demicians within evangelical colleges, its values in addition to giving them a rather than from evangelical scholars of theological warrant for doing so.8 As secular schools.11 Why? Why the negative Brown observes, “the 1973 decision of the reaction from certain quarters of evangel- United States Supreme Court mandating icalism, especially from the academics? abortion on demand, Roe v. Wade was a Some answer this question by stating kind of spark in the powderkeg for that Schaeffer was not a real “scholar” and Schaeffer.”9 For a long time, Schaeffer had that is the reason for some of the negative been warning people that the worldview reaction. However, for a variety of reasons of the post-Christian west was heading to this answer will not do.12 Rather, it seems a de-valuation of human beings, and thus that Michael Hamilton is more on track for him, the Roe v. Wade decision was a when he argues that the diverse reactions decisive call to action. In 1979, he along to Schaeffer, both negatively and posi- with C. Everett Koop and Franky Schaef- tively, reflect a major seismic divide within fer produced the film series Whatever evangelicalism. Schaeffer represents, in Happened to the Human Race? that was the words of Hamilton, “the rougher 6 edge” of evangelicalism in contrast to Billy A Brief Chronology of the Life Graham and others who represent a of Francis Schaeffer15 “smoother edge.” The “smoother edge” Early Years is the part of evangelicalism that repre- • Francis Schaeffer was born on January sents within evangelicalism the “moder- 30, 1912, in Germantown, Pennsylvania. ate middle”—a middle that attempts to He was the only child of working-class defuse controversy and wish the best for parents of German ancestry. Schaeffer’s everyone, who seem to be willing to parents gave lip service to Christianity, but cooperate with anyone who will let them he did not consider himself raised in a preach the gospel.13 Christian home. On the other hand, Schaeffer represents • On his own, he attended a liberal Pres- the side of evangelicalism that is willing byterian Church. However, by his own to work with others for common social confession he did not find any satisfying causes as cobelligerents but not when it answers to the basic questions of life comes to the proclamation of the gospel. from liberal Christianity. As a result, he It is a side that is truth driven, so much so became an agnostic during his high that it recognizes that seemingly “minor” school years. During his latter high shifts of doctrine are significant and thus school years he began to read philosophy must be taken seriously. It is a side that in order to discover answers to life’s calls for a “loving confrontation” in mat- basic questions. Out of curiosity he also ters of truth and life; otherwise compro- read the Bible. In 1930, after six months of mise to the gospel will take place. It is a reading Scripture, beginning with Gen- side of evangelicalism that this author is esis, he became a Christian. He was con- convinced we need to identify with today. vinced that the Bible was true and that it That is why, in a time in which evan- provided the only adequate answers to gelicalism finds itself divided over so many the basic philosophical questions of life. issues, including some major doctrinal • After his conversion, he left trade school ones, it is wise to reflect on the life and to complete college preparation classes at thought of Francis Schaeffer—a servant of night. Although he had done poorly in the Lord who stood firm for the gospel in school up to this point in time, his grades his generation so that we may better learn markedly improved. Against his father’s how to do so in our generation.14 wishes, he began studies in 1931 at How do I propose to look at the life and Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia. He thought of Schaeffer? First, we will begin graduated magna cum laude in 1935. He with a brief chronology of his life to was selected the “outstanding Christian” remind us, or in some cases, to introduce in his class. us to his life, context, and ministry. Sec- • The historic and theological context of ond, we will highlight four lessons we can this period of time was the fundamental- learn from Schaeffer’s thought, broadly ist-modernist controversies. By the early considered. Finally, we will think through 1930s Schaeffer’s own denomination, the two lessons we can learn from his life Northern Presbyterian Church, was being and ministry. torn apart, both in the schools and in the churches. Interestingly, on one occasion in 1932, a sponsored youth speaker spoke on 7 why the Bible is not God’s Word and why fighting that had occurred among the con- Jesus is not the Son of God. During the servatives. He would later call for the need discussion time that ensued, Schaeffer, as of a “loving confrontation” that would a young Christian, rose to defend historic simultaneously stand for truth and a vis- Christianity as best he could. But to his ible love. surprise there was one other person who stood and gave a very articulate defense Pastoring Years from the Scripture as well as utilizing • From 1938-1948, Schaeffer pastored vari- arguments from the works of J. Gresham ous Presbyterian churches in Grove City Machen. Her name was Edith Seville. On and Chester, Pennsylvania, as well as July 26, 1935, Francis and Edith were St. Louis, Missouri. It was during their married. time in St. Louis that he and Edith began an organization called “Children for Seminary Years Christ”—an outreach ministry to children • In the fall of 1935, Francis Schaeffer that eventually spread to other churches entered Westminster Theological Semi- and denominations. nary. Westminster had been founded in • In 1947, Schaeffer was sent by the Inde- 1929 by J. Gresham Machen and other pendent Board for Presbyterian Foreign leading Presbyterian scholars who sought Missions and the Foreign Relations to provide a conservative alternative to Department of the American Council of theological liberalism. During his time at Christian Churches to evaluate the spiri- Westminster, Schaeffer was greatly influ- tual needs of youth and the church’s enced by the work of Machen, Cornelius confrontation with theological liberalism Van Til, and Allan MacRae of Biblical in post-war Europe. As a result of his Theological Seminary. Interestingly, three months in Europe, Schaeffer sensed Schaeffer saw himself as following that God was calling his family to minis- through on the presuppositional apolo- ter in Europe. getic program of Van Til, but sadly, in later years, there was a rift between the two The Move to Europe men, particularly from Van Til’s side. • In 1948 the Schaeffers moved to • In 1936, the Northern Presbyterian Lausanne, Switzerland to be missionaries Church defrocked Machen for his conser- to Europe. By this time, the Schaeffers had vative stand. This led to conservatives three daughters, Priscilla, Susan, and breaking from the denomination, includ- Deborah. Their son, Franky, was born in ing Schaeffer. Unfortunately, due to some 1952. conflict within the conservative groups at • As they came to Europe they first estab- Westminster in 1937 a new seminary was lished “Children for Christ,” as a mission- formed, Faith Theological Seminary in ary outreach to children. Schaeffer also Wilmington, Delaware, under the leader- continued to warn about the dangers of ship of Allan MacRae. Schaeffer moved to theological liberalism, as well as the subtle Faith to complete his studies and gradu- threat of neo-orthodoxy. In 1949, the ated from Faith in 1938. Schaeffer would Schaeffers moved to the mountain village later look back at this time in his life of Champéry, Switzerland. and regret some of the bickering and in- • In 1951, Schaeffer experienced a major 8 spiritual crisis in his life for at least two depend on God to send the right people; reasons. First, he did not see the reality of (3) They would only plan short-term so the gospel at work in the lives of those as to depend on God’s guidance; and (4) who fought for historic Christianity and They would not publicize themselves but this concerned him. Second, he acknowl- trust God to send them people in need. edged that in his own life his experience • At first, meetings and services were held of the Lord was not as vibrant as it once in the Schaeffer’s home. But then it moved had been. This crisis caused him to to an abandoned Protestant church. By re-think everything—even the truthful- word of mouth, the news spread to uni- ness of Christianity. From this experience, versity students that there was a place in Schaeffer came to the firm conclusion that the Swiss Alps where one could get there were good and sufficient reasons to honest answers to life’s deepest questions. know that the God of the Bible does In short order, students were coming to indeed exist and that Christianity is true. L’Abri every weekend. They developed a He also came to a better understanding pattern of meals, walks, talks, and a of the finished work of Christ and the Sunday church service all geared toward work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of providing an atmosphere that would believers. It was from this experience that stimulate conversation about philosophi- his book, True Spirituality, was later born. cal and religious ideas. More than that, it was out of this crisis that • The key emphasis of L’Abri was on L’Abri was born. Schaeffer always said honest answers to honest questions in the that without this time of struggle to find context of a hospitable environment and reality in the Christian life, L’Abri would observable love. In the early days there never have come to exist. was no thought of books, films, and • In 1955, through a series of miraculous audiotapes. In fact, in the case of audio- circumstances, the Schaeffers moved tapes, this only came about reluctantly by into Chalet les Mélèzes in Huémoz, Swit- a microphone being hidden amongst zerland. They not only received the some flowers and the conversations of the necessary funds to purchase the Chalet, evening then taped. It was only when but were granted visas to stay in Switzer- Schaeffer realized that the tapes could be land after being told by the Swiss govern- used to reach others that he allowed for ment that they had to leave the country the tape program to begin. Eventually permanently. people came to study and work at L’Abri. Already by 1957, 25 people were coming L’Abri (“The Shelter”) every weekend. • L’Abri Fellowship was officially born • L’Abri expanded beyond Switzerland. in 1955. It began with friends of Priscilla In 1958, it began in England. Today, coming to the Schaeffer home from the L’Abri’s are found all over the world in university and asking questions about such places as Australia, Holland, India, Christianity, truth, and the issues of life. South Korea, and Sweden, as well as in L’Abri operated on four basic principles: the USA in Massachusetts and Minne- (1) They would not ask for money, but sota.16 would make their needs known to God; • By 1960, L’Abri had grown to such an (2) They would not recruit staff but extent that it attracted the attention of Time 9 magazine. Tapes were now being distrib- began work on the film series “Whatever uted worldwide and Schaeffer was getting Happened to the Human Race?” with invitations to speak in Europe and North C. Everett Koop and Franky Schaeffer, America. These were difficult times at which resulted in a speaking tour in 1979. L’Abri as well. With more and more stu- • In his works, Schaeffer’s critique of dents coming, money and food was short. culture and his defense of historic Chris- • In 1965, Schaeffer traveled back to North tianity led him to also speak up on such America and held lectures in Boston. He issues as: doctrinal and life purity, abor- then went to Wheaton College and gave tion, euthanasia, ecology, war and peace, lectures that later became the basis for his and civil rights. Schaeffer spoke long and book, The God Who is There. At this time, hard against the church standing for the the students greatly appreciated him, but status quo, especially in terms of her adop- the academic community was much tion of the American philosophy of life slower in accepting him. At Wheaton, for that had permeated society since the example, he spoke on issues that most in ’50s—living merely for “personal peace evangelical circles had never heard of or and affluence.” He called for a new gen- were not allowed to discuss such as the eration of Christians who would truly be films of Ingmar Bergman and Fedrico “revolutionary” in their stand for truth in Fellini and the writings of Albert Camus, both doctrine and life. Jean-Paul Sartre, and Martin Heidegger. • During the next ten years, the Schaeffers The 1980s became one of the most well-known fami- • In the 1980s, Schaeffer became increas- lies in evangelicalism. Francis published ingly alienated from evangelical academ- numerous books and booklets, most of ics and politically liberal evangelicals due which came out of lectures he had been to his perceived shift to “conservatism.” giving since the founding of L’Abri, and This was especially due to his publication Edith also published a number of books of A Christian Manifesto (1981) that not dealing with marriage, the family, theol- only praised the rise of the Moral Major- ogy, and the L’Abri story.17 ity, but also called for Christians to stand against abortion and, if necessary, to prac- The 1970s tice civil disobedience. Interestingly, • In 1974, Schaeffer spoke at the Interna- Schaeffer himself did not see any shift in tional Conference on World Evangeliza- his thinking from the ’70s. Rather, he saw tion in Lausanne, Switzerland where he his work in the ’80s as the logical exten- strongly emphasized the importance of sion of a commitment to the practice of biblical inerrancy. Later, in 1977, he helped truth and an outworking of the lordship found the International Council on Bibli- of Christ over every area of life, whether cal Inerrancy. that be in the womb, in the church, or the • It was also during the ’70s that he university classroom. began to speak out against abortion due • In 1984, while still battling cancer that to the Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court he had been diagnosed with in 1978, decision. In 1977 he began a 22 city semi- Schaeffer, literally on his death-bed, did nar and speaking tour for the film series a thirteen-city tour visiting ten Christian “How Should We Then Live?” He also colleges in connection with his last book, 10 The Great Evangelical Disaster. In this last is oblivious to the fact that the water is tour, he passionately spoke on behalf of being slowly heated and that if he does the gospel, warning and pleading with the not jump out of the pot immediately then evangelical church not to compromise bib- certain destruction will result. lical authority in both doctrine and prac- For Christian leaders, pastors, and tice, even naming names of those whom teachers, this lesson is of utmost impor- he believed had done so. He called for a tance. If we are to remain faithful to our new generation of Christians to take a Lord and to his people; if we are to have stand for truth, to be in his words— something worthwhile to say to our gen- “radicals for Christ.” eration; if we are to be those who truly • On May 15, 1984, a month after the tour understand their times and speak to the was complete he died in Rochester, pressing issues of the day, then it will re- Minnesota. quire nothing less than a profound under- standing of the day and age in which we Lessons to Learn from the Thought are called to serve and minister, as well as of Francis Schaeffer a wholehearted devotion to the Lord and Ideas Have Consequences his Word. In this regard, Schaeffer often One of the great legacies of Francis loved to quote the famous statement by Schaeffer’s work was to show us that Martin Luther, “ideas have consequences.”18 Even though he was not entirely correct in some If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every por- of his analysis, Schaeffer was exactly right tion of the truth of God except that western society has seen a “line of precisely that little point which the despair”—a slow process by which ideas world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confess- trickle down from philosophy to art, ing Christ, however boldly I may be music, the general culture and, finally, professing Christ. Where the battle theology.19 The cultural mess we live in rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the did not come from nowhere, rather it has battlefield besides, is mere flight and a long history. As Schaeffer reminded us disgrace if he flinches at that point.20 over and over again, there is a flow to his- tory as ideas work themselves out—both This was not theoretical for Francis for good or ill. Schaeffer. For him, this was a matter of In addition, Schaeffer taught us that to life and death. We must grasp, he warned, understand our present time, we must the importance of “ideas” in order rightly also grasp the flow of intellectual history to understand our times. For, if we do not, that precedes us, and the effects it has and we will be swept away by the “spirit of will have on us as people eventually act our age” without our even being aware on their beliefs. In fact, Schaeffer warned of what has happened to us. us, if we do not think through this intel- lectual history, we will not only mis- The Battle of the Day: The Idea of Truth understand our own times, but we will What, then, for Schaeffer was the key also have nothing constructive to say to “idea” to be grasped today? From an our present age. We will inevitably be like analysis of intellectual history, what the proverbial frog in the pot of water that should the church learn in order to remain 11 faithful to the Lord today? What is our anticipated and described it long before battle? For Schaeffer, the answer is beyond its popular use.22 Schaeffer had a knack dispute; our battle today is a battle for the of doing this. He often could “see” where very idea and concept of truth. Schaeffer ideas were going because he took seriously states: the maxim, “ideas have consequences.” In today’s use, “postmodernism” has The present chasm between the gen- come to mean a mindset that is tightly erations has been brought about almost entirely by a change in the linked with a denial of truth in any objec- concept of truth. tive, universal sense. It is often contrasted Wherever you look today the new with “modernism,” which reflects much concept holds the field. The consen- sus about us is almost monolithic, of the Enlightenment spirit—a spirit, whether you review the arts, litera- interestingly enough, that borrowed much ture or simply read the newspapers from Christianity. Like Christianity, it too and magazines such as Time, Life, Newsweek, The Listener or The believed that truth was objective and uni- Observer…. It is like suffocating in a versal and that reason could gain truth by particularly bad London fog. And research and investigation. However, just as fog cannot be kept out by walls or doors, so this consensus unlike Christianity, it sought to discover comes in around us, until the room truth apart from dependence upon God we live in is no longer unpolluted, and yet we hardly realize what has and his spoken Word. Instead of follow- happened. ing the Christian motto of “faith seeking The tragedy of our situation today understanding” and underscoring the is that men and women are being fundamentally affected by the new priority of divine revelation, modernism way of looking at truth, and yet they sought to follow the agenda of “I under- have never even analyzed the drift stand in order to believe.” In this sense, which has taken place. Young people from Christian homes are brought then, modernism sought to subsume all up in the old framework of truth. truth claims, whether philosophical or Then they are subjected to the mod- religious, under the “authority” of human ern framework. In time they become confused because they do not under- reason independent of God’s Word. stand the alternatives with which Postmodernism, on the other hand, is they are being presented. Confusion becomes bewilderment, and before really modernism that has traveled its long they are overwhelmed. This is road to its logical end, and is thus much unhappily true not only of young more epistemologically self-conscious of people, but of many pastors, Chris- 23 tian educators, evangelists and mis- its starting points and results. In this sionaries as well. sense, postmodernism takes seriously the So this change in the concept of the Enlightenment project centered in the way we come to knowledge and truth is the most crucial problem, as I under- autonomous self. But then, ironically, it stand it, facing Christianity today.21 rightly concludes that if the Enlighten- ment view is correct, truth could never be In the current literature, whether that universal. Why? The simple reason is that is philosophical, scientific, literary, or finite human beings and communities are theological, the term “postmodernism” is too historically situated and sociologically often used to describe what Schaeffer was conditioned to ever yield a “God’s eye referring to. Even though Schaeffer point of view,” i.e., an objective, univer- himself never used the term, he certainly sal, unbiased viewpoint. Truth, in the end, 12 cannot be what modernism hoped it was; battle. No longer is the battle for the rather it must be perspectival, provisional, gospel over this or that point, but over and ultimately, what the community most the whole structure and framework—a values, i.e., pragmatic. Of course, if battle of life and death proportions and postmodernism is true, in contrast to the consequences. beliefs of modernism, then any claims of It is this last observation that needs to individuals or communities to know “the be learned afresh from Francis Schaeffer. truth” is necessarily wrong—an interest- Schaeffer’s great concern was for the proc- ing irony indeed. Postmodernism, at its lamation of the gospel and the building heart, is a distrust of anyone who says, up of the church. He wanted to speak “That’s the way it is” or “This is the truth,” faithfully to his generation in such a way and as such, it tends to a full-blown that the gospel was heard for what it pluralism, relativism, and skepticism. As really was. That is why he labored to help D. A. Carson reminds us, today “the only people understand intellectual history— absolute creed is the creed of plural- not for curiosity’s sake—but for the pur- ism”24 —i.e., everyone’s viewpoint is pose of better understanding the times. In welcome whether it pertains to philo- all the legitimate discussion and debate sophical, moral, or religious matters. over the accuracy of Schaeffer’s interpre- Even though Francis Schaeffer never tation of such people as Thomas Aquinas, used the word “postmodernism,” he Georg Hegel, Søren Kierkegaard, various certainly warned us of the idea and its artists and musicians, and even Karl consequences. In fact, it was this “idea” Barth, most acknowledge that Schaeffer’s that he labored continually in his books overall analysis is correct—an analysis and lectures for us to understand and that has been too often forgotten in both grasp. At the heart of so many issues that its theory and practical implications. confront the church, he argued, is an epis- Regardless of all of the details, Schaeffer temological shift that has taken place in was right to stress the incredible episte- western thought and culture, a shift that mological shifts that had taken place in we now call postmodernism, a shift away western society, shifts that have incredible from truth, or what he called “true practical consequences. Let us briefly high- truth.”25 And, he also warned us, if we do light three of those practical implications not understand this shift and take it seri- that Schaeffer warned us about that are ously and confront it, we will not be fight- of particular importance for the church ing the battle of our day as good soldiers today. of Jesus Christ. In the end, our teaching, preaching, apologetics, and evangelism The Shift to Experience will fall on deaf ears since it will not With the loss of truth there is an increas- address adequately our generation. Our ing shift to experience, but an experience generation will either hear the presenta- that is often devoid of content and truth. tion of the gospel as a relic of a by-gone In his analysis of western thought, era or in the categories of a postmodern Schaeffer argued that modern man society, thus relativizing the gospel.26 increasingly began to view the world in a Ultimately what is at stake today, main- naturalistic way.27 In science, there was a tained Schaeffer, is an entire worldview shift from viewing the uniformity of natu- 13 ral causes in a controlled system by which nality. They argue for meaning, values, God continually sustains that system and purpose, and freedom, but apart from a can even intervene in it if he so chooses, rational base. They live by “faith” but a to a closed system that shuts God out of faith that has little or no content and ra- the system. In philosophy, especially in the tional grounding. They place in the “up- west, there was a growing Enlightenment per story,” as Schaeffer emphasized re- push towards “rationalism,”28 that is, a peatedly, a focus on experience, but an ex- mindset that sought to employ human perience that is open to anything; an ex- reason in such a way that it increasingly perience that can be as diverse as drugs acted independently of divine revelation and sex in the 1960s to new age spiritual- in order to yield a unified world and life ity in the 1980-90s.30 Thus, for Schaeffer, view. But, as Schaeffer claimed, these shifts the best way to characterize “post-mod- eventually led to a dichotomous view of ern” people (or as he stated it, “modern, reality, which he called “the lower and modern”) is that they are those who live upper story,” as evidenced in such dialec- with the dichotomy between the “lower tics as the “nature-freedom” and “phenom- and upper story.” For him, this was not ena-noumena” divide of Immanuel Kant.29 just a clever statement; it was the heart of The problem with these dialectical the matter. views of reality, Schaeffer contended, is So what practical implications does this that they leave us with a terribly divided have for us today? One massive implica- view of the world. Human reason acting tion it has, Schaeffer claimed, is in our independently of divine revelation has no evangelism. In our proclamation of the way of reconciling how in the “lower gospel, we must constantly remember that story” (i.e., the realm of “nature”) this we are preaching to people who live with naturalistic, determined, cause and effect the dichotomy. And unless we anticipate impersonal world can give a rational how they will hear what we are saying, grounding to the “upper story” (i.e., the we run the risk of not communicating to realm of “freedom”) in which we try to them properly and even making converts find meaning, values, purpose, and free- who “believe” in Jesus as just another dom. So what are human beings to do? “upper story” experience divorced from Do they live consistently with the impli- truth, rationality, and reality. In fact, cations of what their reason leads them to Schaeffer’s critique of evangelicalism, conclude in the “lower story”—that they both theologically and practically, was are determined and meaningless? Well, centered on this exact point. some try to. But, as Schaeffer observed, On the one hand, he was concerned that what Scripture teaches is that because this evangelicals in their evangelism were view of reality is wrong and all people are downplaying doctrine and content for made in God’s image, it is nigh impossible experience. In calling people to saving to live with such a view. Instead, what faith we must make clear that gospel people do in practice is give up the possi- realities communicate “true truth,” con- bility of uniting these dichotomous fronting people with the “God who is realms, that is, they give up the hope of really there” and that faith is not a blind truth in the sense of a unified worldview, leap, but rooted and grounded in truth. and then make the move towards irratio- Experience is important, and Schaeffer 14 strongly emphasized that fact, but it must another. He saw this as a practical conse- not be divorced from truth.31 On the other quence of a denial of truth. hand, in the area of academic theology, he For those of us living at the beginning was concerned that evangelicals were of the twenty-first century, we are con- adopting too much of the theology of neo- fronted by this attitude everywhere. When orthodoxy. He believed that it was a mis- The Southern Baptist Convention sends take of gigantic proportions to argue a out prayer letters and says that Jewish and position, such as Karl Barth’s, that allowed Hindu people need to be evangelized be- for the possibility of mistakes in Scripture cause they are lost, we know the kind of that did not negatively affect our faith in reaction that we receive from those out- the Lord Jesus Christ. He viewed Barth’s side the church, and sadly even from those theology as another example of the ten- who identify with the church. What is in- dency of contemporary thought to di- teresting about Schaeffer at this point was chotomize reality and to divorce “faith” that he saw this coming way back in the and theology from rational grounding and 1960s.33 He saw that a major implication verifiable history.32 of the loss of truth is that a full-orbed plu- In these points, Francis Schaeffer is cor- ralism will be put in its place. And part of rect. Evangelicalism, especially today, our calling in our generation is to stand at must not lose the issue of truth, content, this point, without compromise, proclaim- and doctrine. Experience is important. But ing an exclusive Christ in an inclusive, experience must always be grounded in pluralistic age. the truth of God’s Word. Given the tendency of our generation to appeal to The De-valuation of Human Life experience, we must be careful that we are With the loss of truth there is a third not conformed to our age. It matters practical implication, namely the de-valu- greatly what we believe and, ultimately, ation of human life. I have already made whom you believe in. Not all “faith” or mention of this above and I will allude to “faiths” are equal. This leads me to a sec- it below, but it is important to point out ond practical implication that Schaeffer that Schaeffer’s prediction that the post- warned us about. Christian west would begin to devalue life was a prediction rooted in his analysis of The Challenge of Religious Pluralism the shift of ideas that was taking place in With the loss of truth, there will be an the west away from a Christian under- increasing emphasis on religious plural- standing of the world to a modernist and ism and a downplaying of the exclusivity eventual postmodernist understanding of the gospel. When Schaeffer spoke of of reality. Schaeffer had been warning religious pluralism, he was not referring people for years that the worldview of to the empirical observation that there are the west was moving in the direction of many religions in the world and that even interpreting reality solely in terms of an in the west there is an increasing growth impersonal, closed system. Of course the of religions where Christianity once was entailment of this was not only that chem- predominant. Rather, he was referring istry and physics were interpreted within to the mindset that did not allow that a “closed system” but so also were the any one religion was true or better than humanities—psychology, sociology, lit- 15 erature, and even theology. In this, there ferences in terms of presuppositional was a massive turn to the impersonal, differences.35 He argued that in the west which, Schaeffer predicted, would lead to at the beginning of the twentieth century, a de-valuation of human beings. everyone—Christian and non-Chris- Of course, Schaeffer’s prediction was tian alike—were working from basically exactly right. Ethical issues and debates the same presuppositions, influenced common today—abortion, infanticide, strongly by a Christian view of reality. euthanasia, cloning—are all evidences of Even though it could be argued that the the fact that the value of human life is up non-Christian had no right to act on these for grabs. That is why Schaeffer took the presuppositions, given his rejection of stand he did on the social front. It was the Christian worldview, still it could be not a stand divorced from his theology; said that there was a commonality in rather it was precisely because he saw that thinking. But eventually as people began ideas have consequences and that truth to act upon their presuppositions in a demands action. more consistent fashion, which led them As I have stated, Schaeffer’s constant further away from a Christian view of the emphasis that “ideas have consequences” world, many Christians did not notice is one of his great legacies that we neglect what had happened. And so, as Schaffer to our peril. Moreover, we need to learn comments, “The flood-waters of secular from Schaeffer to remain faithful to the thought and liberal theology over- Lord today; to proclaim the gospel in such whelmed the Church because the leaders a way that effectively communicates to did not understand the importance of people; and to prepare Christians to combating a false set of presuppositions. understand their world and live in it in They largely fought the battle on the such a way that they are not molded by wrong ground and so, instead of being it. As he taught us, these issues are not ahead in both defense and communica- merely academic; they are a matter of life tion, they lagged woefully behind. This and death. was a real weakness which it is hard, even today, to rectify among evangelicals.”36 The Importance of Furthermore, this lack of worldview Worldview Thinking thinking, Schaeffer argued, is also due to Francis Schaeffer not only taught us the kind of education we received, that “ideas have consequences,” he also whether it is Christian or secular. He reminded us that the crucial “ideas” at astutely observed that in our education we issue are ultimately worldview debates. often tend towards specialization without Although, this is not a new observation, seeing the interrelationships between dis- it is one that, until recently, has often been ciplines and thus the “big picture,” i.e., neglected.34 Given the tremendous shifts worldview. As such, we are in danger of that have taken place in society, it is im- not seeing how various ideas relate to one portant to realize that we are engaged in another and thus the consequences of a battle not over merely this or that point those ideas. He states, of Christian truth, but over entire compet- ing worldview structures. Today we have a weakness in our educational process in failing to Schaeffer spoke of these worldview dif- understand the natural associations 16 between the disciplines. We tend to trine of God, establishing the worldview study all our disciplines in unrelated parallel lines. This tends to be true structures of Christianity grounded in the in both Christian and secular edu- doctrine of creation, revelation, and the cation. This is one of the reasons why historic fall, and then and only then move evangelical Christians have been taken by surprise at the tremendous to redemption, pointing people to the shift that has come in our generation. Lord Jesus Christ, who alone is their only We have studied our exegesis as hope.39 Why? Because, like Paul at Ath- exegesis, our theology as theology, our philosophy as philosophy; we ens, he knew that unless he first devel- study something about art as art; we oped a biblical frame of reference, i.e., study music as music, without worldview, the proclamation of the understanding that these are things of man, and the things of man are gospel would not make sense and his 37 never unrelated parallel lines. hearers would not hear the gospel for what it truly is, in its own categories and This is an important lesson to learn, on its own terms. Schaeffer, like Paul, was especially in our day. In many ways, we very concerned that the gospel is not are back with Paul at Athens preaching to wrongly dismissed or re-interpreted into an audience and context that is pluralis- another alien worldview framework, for tic, pagan, and foreign to Christianity in that only leads to a distortion of the terms of worldview structures (Acts 17). gospel message. And especially in our That is why Francis Schaeffer repeatedly pluralistic, postmodern, inclusive age, in argued, appealing to texts such as Acts 17, order to present Jesus Christ as not just that we must do “pre-evangelism,” which another god or savior, but the exclusive he closely associated with apologetics. He Lord, Savior, and Judge, Schaeffer saw argued that there were two purposes of that it was imperative to build a biblical- apologetics. First, to defend the Christian theological framework, rooted in the worldview from attacks against it and to story line of Scripture. That is, he saw that give people reasons why we believe Chris- it was crucial to think in a worldview tianity to be true. But there is also a sec- manner, rooted and grounded in the God ond purpose of apologetics that is closely who is there. associated with evangelism and it is this: In truth, what Schaeffer called us to and we are to communicate the gospel to our role modeled in his own life, was the generation in terms they can understand. doing of theology. In the broadest sense, Thus, part of our task in evangelism and the task of theology is to apply all of Scrip- apologetics is to present the gospel for ture to the issues of life. It is to work from what it really is, within its own worldview within the categories, structures, and structure, so that people will hear correctly teaching of Scripture, following the story the claims and demands of the gospel line of Scripture, and apply it to the world. 38 upon them. It is to live from within the worldview of How this practically worked itself out Scripture and to set that biblical-theologi- in the life of Schaeffer was that in his evan- cal framework over against all other gelism and presentation of Christianity he worldviews. In short, it is to learn afresh would not begin with “accept Christ as how “to think God’s thoughts after him” Savior”; instead he would begin where and “to bring every thought captive to the Scripture begins, starting with the doc- obedience of Christ.”40 This was Schaef- 17 fer’s strength and this is another crucial ity, we must learn afresh to communicate lesson that we need to learn from him. the gospel within its own worldview In fact, I am convinced that it was structure, beginning with the God who because he constantly thought at the is there. worldview level that helps explain why he was so adamant that evangelicals must The Centrality of the Doctrine not compromise certain points of doctrine. of God It was because he realized that Christian- Francis Schaeffer was truly a God- ity was a worldview and that its parts centered man. This was not only true in “hung together” as a whole, that he was his personal devotion and life; it was also very concerned when evangelical schol- true in terms of his thought.42 It is instruc- ars would chip away at some of these tive that the very titles of his books—e.g., seemingly “insignificant” points. Thus, The God Who Is There; He Is There and He Is for example, he was very concerned that Not Silent—illustrate the fact that for Adam was viewed as a historic figure and Schaeffer, all the answers of life, meaning, the Fall as a space-time event, and that morality, significance, and values are the early chapters of Genesis were not rooted and grounded in the personal- de-historicized. Why? Because he rightly infinite, Triune God of Scripture. saw that unless we took the Bible on its Interestingly, there is a logical progres- own terms; unless we maintained these sion in these lessons; they are not random crucial starting points that were the build- or haphazard. What has happened to ing blocks for the rest of the story, then western culture? For Schaeffer, modern the worldview of historic Christianity man has turned away from the God of would not only collapse, but, in the end, Scripture. In so doing, certain conse- Christianity itself would become nothing quences have resulted from these alien more than another “upper story” thing worldviews that we see around us, living divorced from rational grounding, truth, in our postmodern culture. What, then, is and the God who is really there.41 At stake, the solution to our problem? Where shall in other words, was not just one point of we turn to overcome the dichotomies in doctrine, but the entire worldview claim; our intellectual life, the alienation in our indeed, the gospel. personal lives, and the impersonalism of If we are to learn from Schaeffer at our society? The Triune God of Scripture. this point, our thinking, teaching, preach- For it is only in him, the personal-infinite ing, and living must be much more God who is the creator, sustainer, and worldview-ish. Our battle today is over providential Lord, the God who speaks, entire worldview structures. Thus, in our that we can find the answers to the ques- teaching and preaching we must work tions of life. In him alone are intellectual harder at showing people how the pieces answers because he is the source and of Scripture “hang together” as a coher- standard of truth; but also in him alone ent whole, and how those pieces lead to is forgiveness, healing, justification, and worldview formation. But even more: in redemption. For Schaeffer, God is not our evangelism, in speaking to a culture merely the transcendental necessity for that increasingly operates with alien meaning, truth, and values. He is also our worldviews and knows little of Christian- portion. He is the God who is there—who 18 can be known, loved, and adored. The answer should not surprise us. He It is at this point, that we must learn was so concerned because the doctrine of from Schaeffer. First, we must learn afresh Scripture was so basic to the Christian how central the doctrine of God is to the worldview and the God of Scripture. For Christian worldview. We must especially Schaeffer, it is the God of the Bible—the learn this living in a day of religious personal-infinite, Triune God—who is the pluralism in which the word “god” has transcendental necessity for meaning, sig- basically become meaningless and nificance, values, and truth. We come to contentless. We must have courage to know this God not only because he is stand and proclaim only one God and no there, but because he has spoken to us— other. We must have courage even in the he is not silent. And because God is as evangelical world in which current debate Scripture presents him to be—the creator, over the doctrine of God is raging, to say sustainer, and Lord of his universe—there that not all conceptions of God are equal.43 is no intellectual problem affirming that It is only the God of Scripture, represented God is perfectly able to reveal himself to by historic Christianity, who is there. But us and to guarantee that what the human secondly we must learn afresh that our authors of Scripture freely write is pre- doctrine of God must not be merely theo- cisely what he intended to have written. retical. This God must also be our portion. Furthermore, this seems to be the claim He must be the one who captures our of Scripture regarding itself.44 So exegeti- thinking and our lives. In our teaching, cally, theologically, and philosophically, preaching, and living, the God of Scrip- biblical authority makes sense. It is intel- ture must be our passion and delight. lectually credible, part and parcel of the entire worldview structure. And it is The Necessity of Biblical Authority theologically necessary if we are to have and Inerrancy truth and to justify theological doctrines.45 Probably few evangelicals have spoken Without a high view of Scripture, we more passionately about inerrancy, bib- deny what Scripture says about itself and lical authority, and the doctrine of inspi- undercut the foundation by which we ration than Francis Schaeffer. Not only may do theology and answer the basic was he instrumental in forming the Inter- questions of life.46 national Council on Biblical Inerrancy, That is why Schaeffer grew increasingly he also taught, preached, and wrote alarmed at evangelicals who were depart- about how much biblical authority was a ing from or undercutting a high view of “watershed” issue. He had no time for Scripture. His last book, literally written evangelicals who only gave lip service to on his death bed, sought to warn the evan- biblical authority while at the same time gelical church against compromising on redefined what inerrancy historically biblical authority for some of the reasons meant for the church, obfuscating it in just stated. He writes, hermeneutical issues, or undercutting the very claims of Scripture regarding itself. Evangelicals today are facing a watershed concerning the nature of Now the interesting question to ask is: biblical inspiration and authority…. Why? Why was Schaeffer so concerned Within evangelicalism there is a about biblical authority? growing number who are modify- ing their views on the inerrancy of 19 the Bible so that the full authority of ited understanding of God’s sovereign Scripture is completely undercut. 51 But it is happening in very subtle control over the world. ways. Like the snow lying side-by- What is important about this observa- side on the ridge, the new views on tion is that Burson and Walls rightly note biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be so very far from that Schaeffer’s high view of Scripture and what evangelicals, until just recently, his defense of inerrancy requires a certain have always believed. But also, like conception of the sovereignty of God and the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed his relation to his creatures, particularly consistently end up a thousand the authors of Scripture. Schaeffer, as one miles apart. who affirmed a strong view of divine What may seem like a minor dif- ference at first, in the end makes all sovereignty and the rule and reign of God the difference in the world. It makes in this world, would not be surprised. all the difference, as we might expect, in things pertaining to the- Arguing from a Reformational theology, ology, doctrine and spiritual matters, he would have acknowledged that the but it also makes all the difference doctrine of inerrancy is intimately tied to in things pertaining to the daily Christian life and how we as Chris- our view of God. As we have noted above tians are to relate to the world in commenting on the God-centeredness around us. In other words, compro- of Schaeffer’s thought, the doctrine of mising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a God was the pivotal starting point in his Christian theologically and how we live understanding and defense of Christian- in the full spectrum of human life.47 ity. For him, not just any god would do. It was only the personal-infinite, (i.e., sov- It should not surprise us that various ereign) Triune God of Scripture who alone evangelicals have not accepted this either- is the foundation for truth and knowledge, or presentation of Schaeffer. For example, and who alone, if he so chooses, can Scott Burson and Jerry Walls think that he reveal himself in such a way that is wholly has overstated his case. They ask whether reliable, true, and trustworthy.52 However, inerrancy really is the watershed issue for what would have disturbed Schaeffer is evangelicals and they respond with a the weakening of the infinite, or sovereign, negative answer.48 They argue that God nature of God that is now occurring in was less concerned with the exact word- some quarters of evangelicalism.53 He ing of Scripture and more concerned with would have been disturbed by this trend the “essential reliability of his overall because he would have whole-heartedly message.”49 They have problems with two agreed with the astute observation of J. I. premises of Schaeffer’s argument: (1) That Packer that: the Bible contains exactly what God desires, down to the very words; (2) That The customary apologetic for bibli- God can precisely control what human cal authority operates on too narrow authors write without taking away their a front. As we have seen, faith in the God of the Reformation theology is freedom, because these premises seem to the necessary presupposition of faith imply an implicit determinism associated in Scripture as “God’s Word writ- with a compatibilistic view of human free- ten,” and without this faith sola Scriptura as the God-taught principle dom.50 Lurking behind this criticism is an of authority more or less loses its implicit adoption of a libertarian view of meaning … we must never lose sight of the fact that our doctrine of God human freedom which entails a more lim- 20 is decisive for our concept of Scrip- a life of prayer. ture, and that in our controversy And the other half of what really with a great deal of modern theol- matters is to love our neighbor as ogy it is here, rather than in relation ourselves. The two go together; they to the phenomena of Scripture, that cannot be separated…. And if we the decisive battle must be joined.54 love our neighbor as Christ would have us love our neighbor, we will certainly want to share the gospel No doubt, much more could be said and with our neighbor; and beyond this must be said about Schaeffer’s exposition we will want to show forth the law and defense of the doctrine of inerrancy.55 of God in all our relationships with our neighbor. But suffice it to say that for him biblical But it does not stop here. Evange- authority was a watershed issue of gigan- lism is primary, but it is not the end tic proportions. It was an issue intimately of our work and indeed cannot be separated from the rest of the Chris- linked to his overall defense of the Chris- tian life. We must acknowledge and tian worldview. He believed that, without then act upon the fact that if Christ is our Savior, he is also our Lord in it, the Christian worldview would begin all of life. He is our Lord not just in to unravel, beginning with the doctrine of religious things and not just in cul- God.56 In this, I am convinced, he is right. tural things such as the arts and music, but in our intellectual lives, We must learn afresh today that the doc- and in business, and in our relation trine of inerrancy is no mere option for to society, and in the attitude toward evangelicals. It is part and parcel of what the moral breakdown of our cul- ture…. Making Christ Lord in our Christianity is and to tone it down is to lives means taking a stand in very undercut the whole. direct and practical ways against the world spirit of our age as it rolls along claiming to be autonomous, Lessons to Learn from the Life of crushing all that we cherish in its Francis Schaeffer path.57 At the end of his life, Schaeffer wrote the following words: In this quote we glimpse something of the life of Francis Schaeffer and lessons we What really matters? What is it that may learn from that life. No doubt it is matters so much in my life and in true that Schaeffer was not a perfect indi- your life that it sets priorities for everything we do? Our Lord Jesus vidual; no one is. Yet, in his life we see a was asked essentially this same person of integrity; a man who attempted question and his reply was: “‘Love to live and act upon what he believed and the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and taught. In particular, he sought to love the with all your mind.’ This is the first Lord and his neighbor, and in so doing to and greatest commandment. And bring his life constantly, in both thought the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and action, under the Lordship of Jesus and the Prophets hang on these two Christ. Let us look at each of these areas commandments.” (Matthew 22:37- 40). Here is what really matters—to in turn. love the Lord our God, to love his Son, and to know him personally as Loving the Lord Your God our Savior. And if we love him, to do the things that please him; simul- As stated above, Schaeffer was a God- taneously to show forth his charac- centered man. This was not only true in ter of love and holiness in our lives; terms of his thought, but also his life. to be faithful to his truth; to walk day by day with the living Christ; to live Whether you read his works or listen to 21 his tapes, a deep devotion for the Lord is Brown recounts that Schaeffer could have clearly evident. Here is an individual who been a part of this movement and attained does not merely talk about God, but one celebrity status; however he detected who knows him deeply. Even the begin- flaws and compromise that were serious ning of L’Abri was born in a spiritual cri- enough to undermine evangelicalism as sis to know God in a deeper way. Schaeffer a movement. What did he see? He saw the recounts in True Spirituality how he him- growing influence of neo-orthodoxy on self faced a spiritual crisis in 1951-52, and evangelical theology. What was appealing out of that crisis the birth of L’Abri took about Barth was that he too, like evan- place. He discovered during this time gelicals, was criticizing many liberal what it meant to rely upon the finished assumptions held in the academic com- work of Christ in our present lives and in munity. As such, some evangelicals were moment-to-moment dependence upon drawn to the orthodox elements in Barth’s the Spirit of God in prayer. And this was theology, while they were slow to observe not mere rhetoric for him. L’Abri itself was the negative points. However, what rooted and grounded in prayer; a visible Schaeffer noticed was not only that Barth’s testimony to the existence, power, and influence in Europe was beginning to grace of God.58 decrease, but also that Barth’s theology, if We also see in Schaeffer a man who adopted, would undermine evangelical sought to exhibit simultaneously the theology.59 holiness of God and the love of God, Where did Barth go wrong? Schaeffer albeit in an imperfect way. He was a man argued that Barth had an improper view of courage and compassion, both in terms of biblical authority. He allowed for the of his thought and life. He spoke much theoretical possibility of mistakes in Scrip- about the need for “loving confrontation” ture, thus undermining the foundations and he demonstrated it in his life. For for evangelical theology. Barth’s critique example, Harold O. J. Brown recounts at against liberalism was helpful, but his least three areas in which Schaeffer took a foundations for the faith were shaky, and stand, when it was not fashionable to do this precisely is what Schaeffer pointed so, largely due to his desire to honor the out. What Schaeffer saw, probably more Lord with all his heart, soul, mind, and clearly than anyone else, was that Barth’s strength. theology was not the one to adopt.60 First, there was his stand against the Brown summarizes it this way: theology of Karl Barth. As noted above, Schaeffer was converted and received his There is no doubt that Barth was antiliberal, and that he affirmed the theological training in the 1930s. At that central doctrines of the Christian time evangelical theology was almost faith. However, his failure to assert nonexistent for a variety of reasons largely Biblical infallibility and the historic- ity of the Gospel accounts meant that stemming from the fundamentalist-mod- his affirmations rested on his own ernist controversies of that era. However, charismatic authority rather than on after World War II, evangelicalism enjoyed that of Scripture. Because of his fail- ure to shore up the foundations of a rebirth under such scholars as F. F. Bruce Biblical authority which had been and Carl F. H. Henry, as well as under the sapped by a generation of destruc- tive criticism, Barth was not able to evangelistic ministry of Billy Graham. establish a second generation of 22 Protestant theologians in the faith taken place in society, must call for “solid that he himself honored; his great- 65 est influence remains among evan- foundations as well as good feelings.” As gelicals and other conservatives who Brown astutely observes, evangelicalism already know why they believe. as a movement only gained a sense of There is no doubt that Barth’s affirmations are encouraging, but strength and stability in those early years his foundations are inadequate, and because “many of Graham’s converts later it would be dangerous to take him went through the school of Schaeffer’s dis- as a theological guide. It is remark- able that Schaeffer recognized this ciplined thinking.”66 three decades ago while some evan- Third, there was his courageous stand gelical leaders today are “discover- for the rights of the unborn. It is impor- ing” Barth as the answer to modern disbelief.61 tant to realize that Schaeffer’s social activism was not independent of his Second, and probably even more dis- defense of truth and the gospel. As already turbing to some evangelicals than his stated above, the Roe v. Wade decision of stand against Barth, was Schaeffer’s fail- the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 was a ure to embrace wholeheartedly the evan- powder keg for Schaeffer. It was alarm- gelistic methods of Billy Graham. It was ing evidence that the ideas of the Enlight- not that Schaeffer was against evangelism, enment were beginning to have practical nor was it due to Graham’s lack of com- consequences in how human beings mitment to biblical authority. Rather, it viewed each other. Schaeffer had been was a twofold concern. First, Schaeffer predicting for quite some time that, with was alarmed that Graham too quickly the loss of a Christian view of reality in worked with and did not sufficiently the west, one of the massive implications distinguish between those who held to would be the loss of respect for human historic Christianity versus liberalism or life. And that is precisely what Roe v. Wade Roman Catholic theology.62 Second, he symbolized for Schaeffer. And so when he, was concerned that Graham’s evangelism along with precious few others, took this did not touch the whole person and as issue to the streets, he did so out of a such, it tended to appeal solely to an profound sense of love for God and his emotional decision—an “upper story” Word, as well as love for his neighbor. experience—that will, in the end, only Truth demanded action. produce pseudo-converts.63 As Brown But initially not all evangelicals, espe- notes, Schaeffer’s criticism of Graham’s cially those in leadership positions, appre- approach was not offered to a wide pub- ciated Schaeffer’s stand. As Brown notes, lic, but it soon became known. He was with the publication of A Christian Mani- criticized by some leaders in the evangeli- festo, he for the first time was branded a cal movement, such as Carl Henry and political conservative, which brought Harold Lindsell, and written off by oth- attacks from a growing number of politi- ers as being too separatistic.64 Yet, cally liberal evangelicals.67 Brown states: Schaeffer realized something that too many failed to see. What good is “success” Schaeffer’s increasingly outspoken commitment to specific conservative in evangelism if it does not produce true causes in the last two years of his life converts? Evangelism, especially in this troubled some evangelicals who dis- era, given the massive shifts that have agreed with him, because they rec- ognized his influence among the 23 general Christian public. In addi- Schaeffer contends that there are four tion, it embarrassed others, who generally agreed with him, because things that are absolutely necessary if they wished to avoid controversy Christians are going to meet the chal- and not to endanger their own lenges of our day: (1) Sound doctrine; (2) acceptance among the general pub- lic. Consequently Schaeffer found Honest answers to honest questions; (3) himself once again, at the end of his True spirituality; and (4) The beauty of life, in the position he had occupied human relationships. In his discussion of in the 1960s, before his name became a household word—a voice crying (1) and (2) he stresses the need to make in the wilderness.68 no compromises over sound doctrine, while simultaneously spending time with Here again, we may learn from Schaef- people and attempting to answer their fer. Even though it was costly to him, he questions. He deplores the attitude of stood for the cause of truth and life. His some in the church who give the impres- practical, social action was not divorced sion that we are not to ask any questions, from his beliefs and his love for the Lord; just believe. This, he says, is always instead, it flowed from them. In a day wrong. It is wrong because it does not when it is so easy to compromise in the view human beings as whole people who midst of pressure, to bend when the need both intellectual and spiritual an- going gets tough, Schaeffer is a contem- swers.70 It is also wrong, especially in an porary role model, like those ancients in age that does not believe in truth, to say the past, who was willing to love God that we have the truth and then not take with his whole self, to exhibit his charac- the time to answer real and difficult ques- ter in the toughness of life, and to be tions. But, of course, this not only takes a faithful to God’s truth. lot of time and effort, it also takes com- passion to meet people where they are. Loving Your Neighbor as Yourself Answering questions is hard work. Schaef- As Schaeffer stated in the quote above, fer states it this way: the love of God and the love of neighbor are intimately intertwined and “if we love Christianity demands that we have our neighbor as Christ would have us love enough compassion to learn the questions of our generation. The our neighbor, we will certainly want to trouble with too many of us is that share the gospel with our neighbor; and we want to be able to answer these beyond this we will want to show forth questions instantly, as though we could take a funnel, put it in one ear the law of God in all our relationships with and pour in the facts, and then go our neighbor.”69 Of course, no person liv- out and regurgitate them and win all the discussions. It cannot be. ing this side of the consummation will Answering questions is hard work. ever achieve this ideal, however in Francis Can you answer all the questions? (and Edith) Schaeffer we see a person who No, but you must try. Begin to listen with compassion. Ask what this at least sought to model for us something man’s questions really are and try to of how it should be done. We see this answer. And if you don’t know the especially in three areas. answer, try to go someplace or read and study to find the answer. First, Schaeffer demonstrates his love Not everybody is called to answer for his neighbor in attempting to give hon- the questions of the intellectual, but est answers to honest questions. In his when you go down to the shipyard worker you have a similar task…. I booklet, Two Contents, Two Realities, 24 tell you they have the same ques- Story after story at L’Abri is centered in tions as the university man. They just do not articulate them the same how this visible love was so instrumental way. in bringing people to Christ.74 Evangelism Answers are not salvation…. And must not be divorced from how we treat there must be the work of the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, what I am talk- the whole person, in our words and in our ing about is our responsibility to actions. have enough compassion to pray Third, Schaeffer’s life sought to exhibit and do the hard work which is nec- essary to answer the honest ques- a wonderful balance between truth and tions.71 love. He stood fast for the gospel, but in so doing he sought to love and under- These were not just empty words to stand in person-to-person relationships 72 Schaeffer; they reflected his life. For the people to whom he was ministering. countless numbers who came to L’Abri, Brown, comparing Francis Schaeffer to Schaeffer sought to put into practice what Athanasius (another role model from the he taught. Constantly one of the charges past who knew what it was to stand for I hear from students at seminary is that the truth), relates how Schaeffer sought to professors, and even pastors, have no time achieve the balance between truth and for them. They have honest questions that love. He states: require time and attention, but often we are too busy to help. But, as Schaeffer Like Athanasius, Schaeffer took reminded us, we are called to love our stands—especially in his last years— which some would call intemperate neighbor. For Christian leaders, pastors, and inflexible. We do not really and teachers, certainly one way that this know how Athanasius dealt with must show itself is in time spent, care people on a personal level; it is possible that he was as severe with shown, and honest answers given to real individuals as he was with their people who, in a postmodern age, deserve theology. But in Schaeffer’s case, we know that the rigor of his convic- nothing less. tions was always tempered with A second way that the Schaeffers love and understanding in person- demonstrated their love for others was to-person relationships as well as in public debate. He invariably treated through hospitality. At L’Abri they opened those with whom he deeply dis- up their home to individuals, which was agreed with consideration and love. certainly not an easy thing to do. As Francis Schaeffer not only held the line for Biblical orthodoxy in his gen- Schaeffer later reflected on this he stated eration as Athanasius had done. that “in about the first three years of What is perhaps even more impor- L’Abri all our wedding presents were tant, Schaeffer showed the next gen- eration not merely that they will wiped out. Our sheets were torn. Holes need to take stands, but where to take were burned in our rugs. Indeed, once a them and how to do so, in Paul’s words, “speaking the truth in love” whole curtain almost burned up from (Ephesians 4:15). He has shown us somebody smoking in our living room…. that standing “contra mundum” is Drugs came to our place. People vomited an essential part of being “pro Christo.”75 in our rooms.”73 Now this is not to say that everyone must do what the Schaeffers Here is another lesson that we must did. However, in their life we see two learn, especially for those of us who serve individuals who took seriously the com- as leaders in the church. Every generation mand to love both God and neighbor. 25 must stand for the truth, but we must do generation. And as we get on a bit in our lives, knowing how weak we so in love. Today, we hear much about are, if we look back and see we have love at the expense of taking hard and been somewhat used of God, then uncompromising stands for truth. In a day we should be the rod “surprised by joy.”76 that desperately needs to hear the truth, we cannot waver at this point. However, From the thought and life of Francis we must not go to the other extreme Schaeffer there is much to ponder and either; both truth and love are necessary. learn. It does not honor him simply to And Francis Schaeffer is a helpful role parrot back everything he has said; he model at this point. A man of conviction, would not have wanted this. Instead, rooted and grounded in God’s Word; a what we are to learn from him is how to man who knew firsthand what “loving minister more effectively in our time as he confrontation” was all about; a man who did in his—with mind and heart firmly sought to love the Lord his God and his rooted and grounded in Scripture; pas- neighbor as himself, and to exhibit, in sionate for the gospel; willing to tackle the thought and action, the Lordship of Jesus issues of our day in faithfulness to our Christ in all of life. May we learn likewise. great God. After all, no higher tribute In the end, Francis Schaeffer was a could be given to a man who sought in fallen, imperfect man, saved by the grace his thought and life, above all, to live of God. He, like us all, made many mis- under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, for the takes. But he was a unique individual, glory of God alone. gifted by God for his generation. He often said that God did not have to use ENDNOTES someone with extraordinary gifts, instead 11Unless otherwise noted, all references to God can use a dead stick of wood if he the writings of Francis Schaeffer will be wants as he did in the hand of Moses. In taken from The Complete Works of Francis a very memorable sermon he stated it A. Schaeffer, 5 vols., 2d ed. (Wheaton: this way: Crossway, 1985). 22Michael S. Hamilton, “The Dissatisfac- Though we are limited and weak in talent, physical energy, and psycho- tion of Francis Schaeffer,” Christianity To- logical strength, we are not less than day, 3 March 1997, 22. a stick of wood. But as the rod of 33Harold O. J. Brown, “Standing Against Moses had to become the rod of God, so that which is me must the World,” in Francis Schaeffer: Portraits become the me of God. Then I can of the Man and His Work, ed. Lane T. Den- become useful in God’s hands. The Scripture emphasizes that much can nis (Westchester: Crossway, 1986) 15-16. come from little if the little is truly 44These three areas of Schaeffer’s impact consecrated to God. There are no are taken from Brown, 19-25. little people and no big people in the 55 true spiritual sense, but only conse- For more on the personal influence of crated and unconsecrated people. Francis Schaeffer in the lives of various The problem for each of us is apply- individuals see the chapters in Part 2 of ing the truth to ourselves.... Those who think of themselves as little Francis Schaeffer: Portraits, 129-205. Also people in little places, if committed in this regard see some of the personal to Christ and living under His Lord- correspondence between Schaeffer and ship in the whole of life, may, by God’s grace, change the flow of our various people on a variety of issues in 26 Lane T. Dennis, ed., Letters of Francis Christian Manifesto in The Complete al., This We Believe (Grand Rapids: A. Schaeffer (Westchester: Crossway, Works, vol. 5. Zondervan, 2000). 1985). 99Brown, 23. 15For further resources that outline 66Francis Schaeffer’s last work, The 10Lane T. Dennis, “Schaeffer and His the life of Francis Schaeffer in much Great Evangelical Disaster (West- Critics,” in Francis A. Schaeffer: Por- more detail, see David Porter, chester: Crossway, 1984) was pub- traits, 102. The reviews that Dennis “Francis Schaeffer,” in Great Leaders lished just months before he died of mentions are those of Ronald A. of the Christian Church, ed. John D. cancer. In this work he sought to Wells, “Francis Schaeffer’s Jer- Woodbridge (Chicago: Moody warn and plead with the evangeli- emiad: A Review Article,” The Press, 1988) 362-366; Colin Duriez, cal community not to compromise Reformed Journal, May 1982, 16-20, “Francis Schaeffer” in Handbook of biblical authority and the exclusiv- and Stephen Board, “The Rise of Evangelical Theologians, ed. Walter A. ity of the gospel. He even named Francis Schaeffer,” Eternity, June Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993) various names of those whom he 1977, 41. 245-259; and Dennis, ed., Francis A. believed had compromised at these 11Dennis, “Schaeffer and His Critics,” Schaeffer: Portraits, 207-211. Also see points, while at the same time call- 227, n. 5. the life story of the Schaeffers as told ing for a new generation of Chris- 12Ibid., 102-26. Dennis’ excellent dis- by Edith Schaeffer in L’Abri, 2d ed. tians to take a stand as “radicals cussion of this whole issue is very (Wheaton: Crossway, 1992) and The for truth” in our time. The Great helpful as he addresses the whole Tapestry (Waco: Word, 1981). Evangelical Disaster was re-pub- issue of whether Schaeffer was a 16For more information on the minis- lished in The Complete Works of “scholar” and whether this is the try of L’Abri Fellowship today, see Francis Schaeffer, 4:301-411. real reason for the negative reaction www.labri.org. 77“Neo-orthodoxy” is a theological to his thought. 17For a complete list of books, tapes, movement beginning in the early 13See Hamilton, 30. and videos by Francis and Edith 1920s and continuing to this day, 14It is well known that evangelicalism Schaeffer see www.labri.org. even though its primary influence is a divided movement on a num- 18This theme runs throughout Schaef- in the larger theological world was ber of important doctrinal issues. fer’s books, but especially see The from the 1920s to the 1970s. It is For a discussion of some of these God Who Is There; Escape from Rea- associated with a number of theo- doctrinal divisions from a variety of son; He Is There and He Is Not Silent; logians such as Rudolf Bultmann, viewpoints see the following: How Should We Then Live?; and Emil Brunner, Reinhold Niebuhr, “Evangelical Megashift,” Christian- Whatever Happened to the Human and Paul Tillich, but it is most ity Today, 19 February 1990, 12-17; Race? in The Complete Works, vols. 1 famously associated with the theol- Kenneth S. Kantzer and Carl F. H. and 5. ogy of Swiss theologian Karl Barth. Henry, eds., Evangelical Affirmations 19There has been a lot of debate over For more on neo-orthodoxy see, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990); the accuracy of Schaeffer’s analysis David F. Ford, ed., The Modern Theo- Millard Erickson, The Evangelical of western thought, art, music, and logians, 2d ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, Left (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997); culture. Even though it is no doubt 1997) 21-102; C. A. Baxter, “Neo- Roger Olson, “The Future of Evan- true that at some points he has Orthodoxy,” in New Dictionary of gelical Theology,” Christianity Today, painted a broad and over-general- Theology, ed. Sinclair Ferguson et al. 9 February 1998, 40-42; Elmer M. ized picture, it has also been (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, Colyer, ed., Evangelical Theology in acknowledged that the “big pic- 1988) 456-457. Transition (Downers Grove: Inter- ture” he sketched has been proven 88On this subject especially see How Varsity Press, 1999); Stanley Grenz, to be basically correct. On more of Should We Then Live?; Whatever Hap- Renewing the Center (Grand Rapids: this see the essays by Ronald Nash, pened to the Human Race?; and A Baker, 2000); John D. Woodbridge et “The Life of the Mind and the Way 27 of Life,” and Lane Dennis, “Schaef- cate an objective, universal, reality- (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and fer and His Critics,” in Francis A. corresponding view of truth. Reformed, 1969). Schaeffer: Portraits, 53-69 and 101- 26For some of these same concerns see 30See The God Who Is There, 1:13-90. For 126 respectively. Also see some of Carson, 13-54; 491-514. Schaeffer, this analysis was at the the helpful comments by Duriez, 27For this analysis especially see heart of his apologetics. Time and 252-259. Escape from Reason, 1:205-270. time again he sought to help people 20Cited in The God Who Is There, 1:11. 28The term “rationalism” can mean become more epistemologically 21The God Who Is There, 1:5-6. many things to many people. To self-conscious about the implica- 22In Schaeffer’s writings, he often dis- some it is a term that refers to a tions of their presuppositions, tinguished between “modern sci- school of epistemology known as attempting to demonstrate that all ence and philosophy” and “modern “Continental Rationalism” in con- worldviews, other than Christianity, modern science and philosophy.” In trast to other schools such as “Brit- are ultimately internally inconsis- this latter expression, he anticipates ish Empiricism” or Immanuel Kant’s tent and thus nigh impossible to live what is now called “postmod- “Transcendental Idealism.” To oth- out, practically speaking. For more ernism.” On this especially see ers, it simply means a person who on the nature and methodology of Escape from Reason, 1:225-236. overemphasizes the use of reason. Schaeffer’s apologetics see The God 23For more on postmodernism, both However, for Schaeffer he is using Who Is There, 1:129-181. popular and more sophisticated, see the term to refer to “any philosophy 31This theme is found throughout the following works: Gene E. Veith, or system of thought that begins Schaeffer’s writings as well as in his Jr., Postmodern Times (Wheaton: with man alone, in order to try to taped lectures. See especially his Crossway, 1994); David Dockery, find a unified meaning to life” (The taped lecture entitled, “Basic Prob- ed., The Challenge of Postmodernism God Who Is There, 1:200). In other lems We Face” Part 1 and 2. All of (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995); Stanley words, “rationalism” refers to a Schaeffer’s tapes and those of L’Abri J. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism mindset, an approach to philosophy Fellowship may be purchased (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996); that views human beings as the through Sound Word Associates, D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God final authority in matters of truth P.O. Box 2036, Chesterton, IN 46304 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996); and reality, which he then sets over or at www.soundword.com. Kevin Vanhoozer, Is There a Mean- against Christianity that views God 32There has been a lot of discussion ing in This Text? (Grand Rapids: and his Word as the final authority over whether Schaeffer interpreted Zondervan, 1998); and Millard for matters of truth and life. and understood Barth correctly. No Erickson, Truth or Consequences: The 29Schaeffer’s analysis of western doubt, Barth is a lot more nuanced Promise and Perils of Postmodernism thought in terms of a progressive than Schaeffer mentioned in his (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, development of a number of dialec- books, and much more could and 2001) and The Postmodern World tical tensions is very similar to that needs to be said about Barth’s the- (Wheaton: Crossway, 2002). of Herman Dooyeweerd, A Critique ology. However, Schaeffer’s basic 24Carson, 19. of Theoretical Thought, 4 vols. (Phil- analysis, I would contend, is correct, 25Schaeffer’s use of the expression adelphia: Presbyterian and especially at the points he was em- “true truth” illustrates the fact that Reformed, 1953-58) and highly phasizing. For a more in-depth he was concerned that the term indebted to his former professor, treatment of Barth’s theology, fol- “truth” no longer meant what it Cornelius Van Til, found in such lowing a similar assessment, see used to mean. So, in order to com- works as: A Christian Theory of Cornelius Van Til, Christianity and municate effectively to a generation Knowledge (Phillipsburg: Presbyte- Barthianism (Nutley: Presbyterian that does not believe in truth, he rian and Reformed, 1969); and A and Reformed, 1977). coined this expression to communi- Survey of Christian Epistemology 33See the taped lectures of Schaeffer 28 entitled, “Basic Problems We Face”’; which to demonstrate it. Cornelius that faith which believes God on the “Exclusive Christ in an Inclusive Van Til, on the other hand, used the basis of knowledge is true faith, is to say Age”; “Relativism in the 20th Cen- term to refer to the ultimate crite- something which causes an explosion tury”; and “Vatican Council II.” In rions of one’s world-view that are in the twentieth-century world” (The the “Vatican II” lectures, Schaeffer not beyond rational proof, i.e., they God Who Is There, 1:153-154). perceptively analyzes the shifts that are transcendentals that must be 39For an example of this see The God were occurring in Roman Catholic argued for and defended. As Van Til Who Is There, 1:93-160; Two Contents theology towards a more “inclu- states, “A truly transcendental argu- and Two Realities, 3:407-422, and sive” understanding of salvation at ment takes any fact of experience various tapes where he discusses the beginning of Vatican Council II which it wishes to investigate, and this such as: “Basic Problems We in 1962. tries to determine what the presup- Face” and “Before the Beginning.” 34The term “worldview” today is now position of such a fact must be, in 40The expression “to think God’s common, thanks to the influence of order to make it what it is” (Survey thoughts after him” was a strong people like Francis Schaeffer. For a of Christian Epistemology, 10; cf. 201). emphasis in the thought of Cor- popular work that helps us view For a helpful discussion on how nelius Van Til, Schaeffer’s apolo- ideas in terms of worldview struc- the term presupposition is used in getics teacher at Westminster tures see James Sire, The Universe Christian apologetics see Greg L. Theological Seminary. For a helpful Next Door, 3d ed. (Downers Grove: Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic discussion of this phrase in Van Til InterVarsity Press, 1997). (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and with application to Schaeffer’s 35In apologetics, the word “presuppo- Reformed, 1998) 461-697. thought as well, see Bahnsen, 220- sition” is not always used in the 36The God Who Is There, 1:7. 260. same way. This is important to 37Escape from Reason, 1:211. 41This argument is especially devel- remember and sadly it is too often 38Schaeffer spoke of this in terms of oped in Genesis in Space and Time, forgotten in debates over method- “pre-evangelism.” Christian apolo- 2:1-114 and The Great Evangelical ological differences between vari- getics, he argued, had two pur- Disaster, 4:301-411. ous approaches to apologetics poses: (1) to defend the gospel; and 42For the centrality of the doctrine of within evangelical apologetics. (2) to communicate the gospel in a God in the life of Schaeffer see such Schaeffer, for example, used the way that any given generation can works as: True Spirituality, 3:193-378; term to refer to “a belief or theory understand. In using the term “pre- Two Contents, Two Realities, 3:407- which is accepted before the next evangelism” he was referring to (2). 422; and The Great Evangelical Disas- step in logic is developed” (The God Schaeffer was concerned that in our ter, 4:301-411. Who Is There, 1:201). In this sense, presentation of the gospel, espe- 43One cannot help think of the raging “presuppositions” serve as hypoth- cially living in an increasingly bib- debate within evangelical theology eses that need to be independently lically illiterate and post-Christian over open theism and the attempt verified by such things as logic, culture, that people had knowledge by open theists to redefine and historical evidence, pragmatic fit, of the gospel before they had faith, revise the doctrine of God. On this etc. Gordon Clark in Three Types of hence the need for pre-evangelism. see the various books by open the- Religious Philosophy (Nutley: Craig As he stated, “the invitation to act ists such as: Clark Pinnock, et al., The Press, 1973) 121-123, used the term [that is, believe in Christ] comes Openness of God (Downers Grove: to refer to “axioms” of a person’s sys- only after an adequate base of InterVarsity Press, 1994); John Sand- tem of thought, which are unprov- knowledge has been given…. ers, The God Who Risks (Downers able because they are dogmatically Knowledge precedes faith. This is Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998); and posited as a first principle for which crucial in understanding the Bible. Gregory A. Boyd, God of the Possible there is nothing more basic by To say (as a Christian should) that only (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000). In 29 terms of response and able critique end, Scripture will not be able to same time maintaining a strong see Bruce A. Ware, God’s Lesser Glory serve as our final authority unless sense of God’s sovereign rule and (Wheaton: Crossway, 2000); and it is trustworthy and reliable in all reign over the world. How libertar- John M. Frame, No Other God that it affirms. ians have taken their argument (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and 46See The Great Evangelical Disaster, today, and especially how they have Reformed, 2001). 4:329-330. applied it to the doctrine of Scrip- 44On what Scripture claims for itself 47Ibid., 328-329. ture (cf. Basingers’ argument), I am see Wayne Grudem, “Scripture’s 48See Scott R. Burson and Jerry L. convinced Schaeffer would have Self-Attestation and the Problem of Walls, C. S. Lewis and Francis Schaef- rejected outright. For a more in- Formulating a Doctrine of Scrip- fer (Downers Grove: InterVarsity depth discussion of the divine ture,” in Scripture and Truth, ed. Press, 1998) 114. sovereignty-human freedom rela- D. A. Carson and John D. Wood- 49Ibid., 135-136. tionship as applied to Scripture see bridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 50Ibid., 135. my articles, “The Importance of the 1983) 19-59; John Frame, “Scrip- 51There has been a lot of discussion Nature of Divine Sovereignty for ture Speaks for Itself” in God’s Iner- of late as to the entailments of a lib- Our View of Scripture,” The South- rant Word, ed. John W. Montgomery ertarian view of human freedom for ern Baptist Journal of Theology 4.2 (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1974) 178- one’s conception of divine sover- (2000) 76-90, and “Divine Sover- 200; Sinclair Ferguson, “How Does eignty, and thus the God-Scripture eignty-Omniscience, Inerrancy, and the Bible Look at Itself?” in Inerrancy relationship. David Basinger and Open Theism: An Evaluation” Jour- and Hermeneutic, ed. Harvie Conn Randall Basinger in “Inerrancy, Dic- nal of the Evangelical Theological (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988) 47-66. tation, and the Free Will Defense,” Society (forthcoming, June 2002). 45Schaeffer’s argument at this point Evangelical Quarterly 55 (1983) 177- 52See He Is There and He Is Not Silent, is for the epistemological necessity 180, spawned the discussion by 1:347. of inerrancy, i.e., without an iner- arguing that one could not simulta- 53See note 51. rant text there is no way to justify neously hold to libertarianism and 54J. I. Packer, “‘Sola Scriptura’ in His- theological doctrines. What does inerrancy, unless one wanted to tory and Today,” in God’s Inerrant Schaeffer mean by this? Schaeffer’s appeal to a dictation theory of Word, 60. argument was not that if the Bible is inspiration. Burson and Walls refer 55For some current works that defend wrong on one point, it cannot be to the Basingers’ argument posi- a high view of Scripture see, for trusted anywhere. Obviously that tively and then try to place Schaeffer example, D. A. Carson and John argument is false. Just because the in the camp of libertarianism, thus Woodbridge, eds., Scripture and Bible might be wrong at one point arguing an inconsistency in Schaef- Truth and Hermeneutics, Authority, does not mean that it is not reliable fer’s thought. In terms of the issue and Canon (Grand Rapids: Zonder- in much of what it teaches at other of whether Schaeffer was a libertar- van, 1986); Norman Geisler, ed., points where it can be confirmed. ian, this is very difficult to assess. Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zonder- Rather, what he did mean is that if Schaeffer was not working with a van, 1980); J. M. Boice, ed., The Foun- Scripture is not inerrant in every- precise definition of human free- dation of Biblical Authority (Grand thing that it affirms, then how do dom, especially as we have it in the Rapids: Zondervan, 1978); Harvie we know any theological truth philosophical and theological litera- M. Conn, ed., Inerrancy and Herme- asserted in Scripture? A theological ture today. Rather, Schaeffer’s con- neutic; Gordon Lewis and Bruce truth which is asserted in Scripture cern was to emphasize the freedom Demarest, eds., Challenges to Iner- might be believed, it might even be and responsibility of human beings, rancy (Chicago: Moody, 1984); Earl true, but how will it be known if the in contrast to the determinism of Radmacher and Robert Preus, eds., Scripture contains errors in it? In the people like B. F. Skinner, while at the Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible 30 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984); of cooperating in the area of evan- list. But he did not view his evan- Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and gelism with those who are not evan- gelism as divorced from the great Authority, 6 vols. (Waco: Word, 1976- gelical in their theology in The intellectual and cultural issues of life 83). Church at the End of the Twentieth because human beings are whole 56On this point, see Schaeffer’s dis- Century, 4:30-49; The Great Evangeli- beings. He states: “People often say, cussion in The Great Evangelical cal Disaster, 4:343; and Letters of ‘What are you?’ and I sometimes Disaster, 4:329-344. Francis Schaeffer, 72. have said, ‘Well basically I am an 57Ibid., 4:321-322. 63See Brown, 21-22. Much of Schaef- evangelist.’ But sometimes I do not 58For the story behind L’Abri and how fer’s criticism of Graham at this think that people have understood it was birthed and maintained in point is not directly written down. that does not mean that I think of prayer see Edith Schaeffer, L’Abri. We know of it from those who knew an evan-gelist in contrast to dealing 59This is not to say that some evan- Schaeffer personally as well as hints with philosophic, intellectual, or gelicals did not criticize Barth’s of it in Schaeffer’s writings. On this cultural questions with care. I am theology. But Schaeffer, along with point see Two Contents; Two Realities, not a professional, academic phi- Van Til, were very concerned that 3:407-422 and The Great Evangelical losopher—that is not my calling, evangelical theology distinguish Disaster, 4:343. and I am glad that I have the call- itself from Barth, even though Barth 64See Brown, 21-22. ing that I have, and I am equally spoke many excellent points against 65Ibid., 21. Schaeffer states, “What is glad some other people have the liberalism. Both Van Til and Schaef- the use of evangelicalism seeming other calling. But when I say that I fer were concerned about the whole to get larger and larger if sufficient am an evangelist, it is not that I am package of Barth’s thought, which numbers of those under the name thinking that my philosophy, etc. is they were convinced would under- evangelical no longer hold to that not valid—I think it is.... But what I mine historic Christianity. On Van which makes evangelicalism evan- am saying is that all the cultural, Til’s strong reaction to Barth see gelical? If this continues, we are not intellectual or philosophic material Christianity and Barthianism (Nutley: faithful to what the Bible claims for is not to be separated from leading Presbyterian and Reformed, 1977). itself, and we are not faithful to people to Christ. I think my talking Also see John Frame’s incisive sum- what Jesus Christ claims for the about metaphysics, morals, and mary of Van Til’s problem and Scriptures. But also—let us not ever epistemology to certain individuals rejection of Barth’s theology, paral- forget—if this continues, we and is a part of my evangelism just as lel to Schaeffer’s reaction as well, in our children will not be ready for much as when I get to the moment Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His difficult days ahead” (The Great to show them that they are morally Thought (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian Evangelical Disaster, 4:343). guilty and to tell them that Christ and Reformed, 1995) 353-369. 66Ibid., 21-22. died for them on the cross. I do not 60This is not to say that Schaeffer was 67Ibid., 24. see or feel a dichotomy: this is my the only one to criticize Barth at this 68Ibid., 25. philosophy and that is my evange- point. I have already made mention 69The Great Evangelical Disaster, 4:322. lism. The whole thing is evangelism of Van Til as another strong critic, 70Schaeffer emphasized strongly to the people who are caught in the and there were others as well. that evangelism must deal with second lostness we spoke of—the 61Brown, 20-21. the whole person—the mind, will, second lostness being that they do 62See Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism emotions, heart, and soul. When not have answers to the questions Divided (Carlisle: Banner of Truth asked on one occasion how he of meaning, purpose, and so on.... Trust, 2000) 50 n. 5; 76-77. Also see viewed himself, whether as a theo- To me there is a unity of all reality, where Schaeffer comments on the logian, philosopher, or apologist, he and we can either say that every fear he sees within evangelicalism responded that he was an evange- field of study is a part of evange- 31 lism… or we can say that there is no true evangelism that does not touch all of reality and all of life” (The God Who Is There, 1:185-187). 71Two Contents, Two Realities, 3:414. 72See Letters of Francis A. Schaeffer and Part 2 of Francis A. Schaeffer: Por- traits, 131-205. 73Cited in Hamilton, 25. 74Once again I would refer the reader to Part 2 of Francis Schaeffer: Por- traits, 131-205. 75Brown, 26. 76“No Little People, No Little Places,” in No Little People, 3:8, 14.

32