Remembering Francis Schaeffer R. Greg Grooms

R. Greg Grooms worked at L’Abri, In the summer of 1974 a committee several generations. Every pastor of both in Switzerland and the United headed by Billy Graham convened a con- every church I attended as a child was States, from 1978-1994. Since 1994 ference on World Evangelization in educated at The Southern Baptist Theo- he has worked at the Probe Center, a Lausanne, Switzerland. Among the many logical Seminary in Louisville during the Christian study center serving students papers presented at the conference was 1950s. Thus my first impressions of and faculty at the University of Texas one entitled “Two Contents, Two Reali- Schaeffer were peculiarly Baptist. Those at Austin, where he is currently the ties,” which begins simply, impressions? This man believes what I director. believe. His understanding of the gospel There are four things which I think was the same as that I had heard preached are absolutely necessary if we as Christians are to meet the need of in revivals by Angel and Homer Martinez our age and the overwhelming pres- when I was a boy. He was, I thought, a sure we are increasingly facing. They true fundamentalist, and thus was trust- are two contents and two realities: The First Content: Sound Doctrine worthy. The Second Content: Honest At the same time he was unlike any Answers to Honest Questions fundamentalist I had ever met. He was The First Reality: True Spiritual- ity well-read in a wide range of subjects in- The Second Reality: The Beauty of cluding philosophy, fiction, and history. Human Relationships1 He took an evident delight in music, not just the Christian composers like Bach, but The paper’s author was Francis Schaeffer. even wild secularists like Beethoven and I begin my reminiscences of him here for Debussy. The visual arts, especially paint- two reasons. First, because this paper was ing and film, were of particular interest my first exposure to his work. I was to him. He would spend hours each week twenty-four years old in 1978, a recent comfortably and amicably conversing college graduate. I had bummed around with non-Christians. He was interested in Europe for six months, prior to stopping everyone and everything around him. By by the Schaeffer’s home in Switzerland. the time I arrived at his home in the late As I listened there to a recording of “Two ’70s, it was a haven for an odd and Content, Two Realities” I was so intrigued delightful band of misfits from all over the by what I heard that I abandoned my world. They came to talk, learn, and live travel plans and stayed put. Even now, with Francis Schaeffer, one of the twenti- twenty-four years later, I remain intrigued eth century’s great Christian teachers. by Francis Schaeffer and his work. The second reason I begin here is because I can Sound Doctrine think of no better summary of what was For Francis Schaeffer the starting point important to him and what so fascinated in any discussion of sound doctrine was me than “Two Contents, Two Realities.” the Bible itself. An ardent supporter of the In the interests of full disclosure, let me inerrancy of scripture, he saw it as the confess here that I—as we used to say at most important issue dividing the twen- home—was born and raised a Southern tieth century church. Baptist. My family has been Baptist for 52 Martin Luther said, “If I profess Scripture, but to replace it with individual with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every point of the truth religious experience. Not that Schaeffer of God except precisely that little was opposed to the work of the Holy point which the world and the devil Spirit; quite the contrary, orthodox doc- are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however trine with no spiritual reality in it was boldly I may be professing Christ. “dead orthodoxy” and “there is nothing Where the battle rages, there the loy- uglier than dead orthodoxy.” Still he rec- alty of the soldier is proved and to be steady on all the battle front ognized that the heart of the challenge besides, is mere flight and disgrace posed by neo-orthodoxy is the question if he flinches at that point.” of authority: does it lie in written revela- In our day that point is the ques- tion of Scripture. Holding to a strong tion (the Bible) or in an inner feeling? To view of Scripture or not holding to Schaeffer there was only one answer to it is the watershed of the evangeli- cal world. this question, the answer given in his The first direction in which we favorite hymn: “Jesus loves me, this I must face is to say most lovingly but know, for the Bible tells me so.” clearly: evangelicalism is not consis- tently evangelicalism unless there is To Schaeffer sound doctrine was more a line drawn between those who take than just the doctrine of inerrancy; it was a full view of Scripture and those the Reformed faith. In the late 1970s his who do not.2 students not only considered his analysis of western philosophy and culture, they Promoting and defending the doctrine of studied his lectures on Christian Doctrine, inerrancy is one of the earliest and most based on the Westminster Confession of consistent factors in Schaeffer’s work. One Faith. His was the faith of John Calvin and finds it early on in his work in his involve- his successors, a tradition to which he held ment in the International Council of Chris- with pride, but not without an awareness tian Churches, later in his participation in of its historical tensions. “There are those the International Council on Biblical who are Reformed,” he once said to me, Inerrancy, and in his last book, written “And those who are Truly Reformed,” and while dying, The Great Evangelical Disas- added, “I’m Reformed.” For Schaeffer ter. Throughout his life he evidenced this simply saying, “God is sovereign” was not concern in his lectures, books, and in per- enough. One must add with equal force, sonal conversations and correspondence “God is not the author of evil, and human with theologians such as Karl Barth. He beings are truly significant.” was convinced that twentieth century It is also worth noting that a commit- neo-orthodoxy posed an even greater ment to Reformed theology did not move threat to the church than nineteenth cen- Schaeffer to separate himself from the tury higher criticism. Whereas nineteeth wider evangelical community, nor did one century liberals openly declared their con- have to affirm the Westminster Confession tempt for the supernatural, neo-ortho- in order to work with him. When he doxy retained the language of faith, but established the L’Abri community in cast off its moorings to Scripture. The Switzerland and wrote the doctrinal con- result—an unstable amalgam of faith and sensus to which new workers would be existentialism—undercut the gospel as held, he wrote it to reflect a broadly evan- mere modernism never could, in that it gelical perspective, rather than a specifi- sought not just to deny the authority of 53 cally Reformed one. This illuminates, in Can you answer all the questions? No, but you must try. Begin to listen my opinion, the nature of his doctrinal with compassion. Ask what this commitments. For Schaeffer, adopting a man’s questions really are and try to creed did not prevent dialogue, but rather answer. And if you don’t know the answer, try to go someplace or read was the basis upon which he communi- and study the answer.4 cated with those who disagreed with him. When my Catholic mother-in-law-to-be The goal of mere apologetics is often came to Switzerland in 1978, she attended nothing more than to reassure believers the discussion Schaeffer led each Satur- that they have made the right choice. I day evening in the mountainside chapel have dozens of books on mere apologetics near his home. It was typical of the dis- in my library. They are written by Chris- cussions that Schaeffer fostered in those tians, for Christians. Their purpose is to years, full of conflicting opinions and ex- reassure people who have already com- travagant personalities. What struck her mitted themselves to Christ in faith that most forcefully about the discussion was they have made the right choice. Mere the diversity of viewpoints it contained. apologetics functions after the fact of faith, “I can’t believe you let these people dis- not before. agree with you so much, Dr. Schaeffer,” Schaeffer was not satisfied with mere she said afterwards. “That’s the heart and apologetics, because he himself did not soul of what we do here,” he replied. come to faith this way. As a young man “Truth doesn’t depend upon agreeing he read philosophy, a study that for him with me.” was never merely academic. Plato and Aristotle had written their books to give Honest Answers to answers to people about life. Why read Honest Questions them as mere academic abstractions? And Since his death in 1984 much has been to Schaeffer, the young man looking for written about Schaeffer’s apologetic answers, theirs seemed more substantial method. Some see him as a disciple of than those he had heard preached in main- Cornelius Van Til. Others place him in the line Presbyterian churches. The turning classical tradition.3 While acknowledging point in his life came when, as an exercise his debt to those who taught him, in intellectual honesty, he also read the Schaeffer himself often denied having an Bible. There he discovered, to his surprise, apologetic method. Embracing a method that the same questions were asked and is easy; answering the questions of indi- sufficient answers were given. Schaeffer’s viduals is a far more difficult task. conversion was not a Damascus road experience; it came through honestly wres- Christianity demands that we have tling with his own questions in light of enough compassion to learn the questions of our generation. The Scripture. If there is a first step in his trouble with too many of us is that approach to apologetics, it is this: be we want to be able to answer these honest with your own questions, for questions instantly as though we could take a funnel, put it in one ear you will never be able to answer someone and pour in the facts, and then go else’s questions until you have answered out and regurgitate them and win all the discussions. It cannot be. your own. Answering questions is hard work. It is also worth noting that Schaeffer 54 polished his apologetic craft in a secular is to understand this statement primarily setting. In his early years in Switzerland in abstract terms. To Schaeffer his commit- he spent many hours talking with stu- ment to think worldviewishly was first dents at the University of Lausanne, and foremost personal and practical. If either on campus or in his home in the you want to communicate the gospel mountains. The chief obstacle to commu- effectively, you must first know your nicating the gospel to them was not the audience, what they believe and why, and French they spoke well and he poorly. It how believing it influences their lives. was rather the ideas they had embraced, Here is step two in Schaeffer’s approach which ideas, in their experience, Chris- to apologetics: understand your audience tians had shown little interest in. Most and their place in history. were students of the social sciences, But, to Schaeffer, wrestling with one’s newly-enamored followers of Jean Paul own questions in light of Scripture and Sartre, Albert Camus, or Karl Jaspers. understanding one’s audience was only They were convinced that the meaning of the preparation for the real work of deal- life is something each person creates for ing honestly with honest questions. The himself, that faith commitments are inher- practice of apologetics—the hard work— ently personal and subjective, and that lay in putting this knowledge to work each person must find the truth that is with real people. Mere apologetics is right for him. often satisfied with communicating infor- Schaeffer’s response to them was more mation. Schaeffer recognized that the art than, “Let me tell you what’s wrong with of persuasion demands more than this: it Sartre, Camus, and Jaspers.” He helped demands patience, time, and compassion. them understand why and how these men It is hard to appreciate the cost Francis had come to think the way that they did. Schaeffer paid personally for opening his He helped them understand why such home to thousands of people over the ideas are popular and where they may years. He was by nature a quiet and lead in the end. Most importantly, he intensely private person; few people helped them reconsider the gospel as an treasured order more than Francis alternative to existentialism. Schaeffer. At the same time few homes In his introduction to How Should We have known less of privacy and order than then Live?, Schaeffer says, the Schaeffer home during their years in Switzerland. Why would such a man open There is a flow to history and cul- his home? One reason is that he thought ture. This flow is rooted and has its wellspring in the thoughts of people. God was calling him to do so. (Edith People are unique in the inner life Schaeffer’s book L’Abri chronicles the of the mind—what they are in their events that led them to this conclusion.) thought-world determines how they act. This is true of their value sys- At the same time he opened his home for tems and it is true of their creativity. a very practical reason: living with people It is true of their corporate actions, for months at a time was often the only such as political decisions, and it is true of their personal lives.5 way to find the time needed for their questions to be heard and answered The danger in reading Schaeffer adequately. A conversation that began at (largely to people who did not know him) breakfast might continue not only at 55 lunch, but over the course of the next few could see the reality of what the Bible months. Francis Schaeffer is often lauded, promised existentially both in himself rightly so, for the insights that fill his and in the church, he would return to books, but the truth is that he was often agnosticism. Answers that made sense, able to answer the questions of his gen- but were not accompanied by the reality eration more effectively than others sim- of God’s grace at work in him and in his ply because he took the time to do so. Here people were at best half answers; at worst, is step three in Schaeffer’s approach to whole lies. apologetics: invest your time and yourself. And gradually I found something. I found something that I had not been True Spirituality taught, a simple thing but profound. In 1951 and 1952 after having served I discovered the meaning of the as a pastor and missionary for many years, work of Christ, the meaning of the blood of Christ, moment by moment Schaeffer seriously reconsidered his own in our lives after we are Christians— faith. He was not driven to this crisis of the moment-by-moment work of the faith by questions the Bible could not whole Trinity in our lives because as Christians we are indwelt by the answer, but by the lack of “spiritual real- Holy Spirit. That is true spirituality.7 ity” he saw in the church and in himself. I fear there is no single quote from his I took about two months, and I writings that can adequately capture what walked in the mountains whenever it was clear. And when it was rainy, this realization meant to Francis Schaeffer. I walked back and forth in the hay- It not only reaffirmed his faith; it produced loft over our chalet. I thought and his work. By his work, I mean both his wrestled and prayed, and I went all the way back to my agnosticism. I books and the L’Abri community he asked myself whether I had been established in Switzerland in the 1950s. right to stop being an agnostic and It is impossible to understand Schaeffer to become a Christian. I told my wife, if it didn’t turn out right I was adequately without looking at both, for going to go back to America and put to him truth was not just something to it all aside and do some other work. I came to realize that indeed I had understand; it can and must be lived in been right in becoming a Christian. every area of life and culture. But then I went on further and fur- This more than anything else about ther and wrestled deeper and asked, “But then where is the spiritual Schaeffer is what captured my attention reality, Lord, among most of that in 1978. I had come to see a rather large 6 which calls itself orthodoxy?” gap between the sacred and the secular. The former included activities at church, A Hollywood version of Schaeffer’s story in addition to devotional, ethical, and would have him realize at this point that evangelistic activities away from the he had been wrong all along about his church. The latter included everything insistence on the truth of the Bible and the else, and while it was by far the larger (and importance of having answers that make in many ways the more interesting) of the sense. Personal experience, he would two, it was inferior because of its worldly learn, is the only thing that matters after nature. My chief existential question when all. Instead Schaeffer realized that honest I met Schaeffer was, “Graduate school or answers to honest questions—important seminary?” It seemed to me an easy as they are—are not sufficient. Unless he 56 choice, until Schaeffer shook up my more than striving to understand all of life categories. and culture from God’s perspective; it All of life short of sin is spiritual and means building on this foundation, being meant to be lived to the glory of God, he salt and light in every area. said. All of life short of sin is equally spiri- tual and meant to be lived to the glory of The Beauty of God. There are no little people, and no little Human Relationships places of service. God can be as well-glori- The late Walker Percy once wrote that fied and as well-pleased in your becoming the dilemma of man in the twentieth cen- an artist as he is in your becoming a mis- tury is that “he is like a child who sees sionary. Indeed, Schaeffer’s own son everything in his new world, names became an artist and a film-maker with everything, knows everything except his father’s blessing and encouragement. himself.”8 To be sure, this is not a new To many evangelicals, Schaeffer’s dilemma. Answering the question “Who emphasis on the scope of what is truly am I ?” is no more important or poten- spiritual was nothing less than an eman- tially troubling today than it has ever cipation. My existential dilemma, simple been. It is perhaps more difficult to answer as it was, had seemed to me a no-win situ- it now, in an era dominated (at least in the ation. I could either choose to enter the west) by humanistic thinking. After all, church professionally and be cut off from declaring man to be the measure of all much of life and human culture, or I could things does not equip man to measure embrace the world and a second-rate himself accurately. spirituality. If this seems an exaggeration Schaeffer understood well both the of evangelical pietism, it is only slightly human dilemma at this point and the so. After all, every Sunday for years, at Bible’s answer to it. The “mannishness of the close of worship, I had been given the man,” i.e., his personal nature, is a reflec- opportunity both to reaffirm my faith and tion of the nature of God himself. We are to commit myself to “full-time Christian made in His image. Likewise his “moral service.” Schaeffer helped my generation motions,” i.e., his conscience, innately see- understand that it is possible to be in full- ing the world in categories of right and time Christian service and not get one’s wrong, is a reflection of the holy charac- paycheck from the church. He convinced ter of His Maker. Man’s cruelty to himself us that we could have our cake and eat it and others is not evidence of schizophre- too. We could embrace life and human nia, but of the fact that we are fallen and culture short of sin, and know God’s plea- utterly in need of God’s redemption and sure in doing so. Indeed, he persuaded us restoration. that this was more than permissible; this Schaeffer’s message was that the gos- is what God desires of His people, the pel not only gives us hope, it makes sense church, in every generation. Just as hon- of who we are. More than this, it gives us est answers are empty answers unless a reason to fight evil. they are lived, the Lordship of Christ over all of life is a narrow, empty concept On this basis we can have an adequate ground for fighting evil, unless it embraces all of life. Developing including social evil and social a Christian world and life view involves injustice. Modern man has no real 57 basis for fighting evil, because he “On the basis of an unweakened Bible, we sees man as normal…. But the Chris- tian has [such a basis]…. God did not must teach and act, in our individual lives make man cruel, and He did not and as citizens, on the fact that every in- make the results of man’s cruelty. dividual has a unique value as made in These are abnormal, contrary to what God made, so we can fight the the image of God. This is so from a child evil without fighting God.9 just conceived in the womb to the old with their last gasping breath and beyond.”10 In its 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision the U.S. Schaeffer believed with James that Supreme Court overturned laws restrict- hearing the message is not enough. We ing access to abortion in all 50 states and must live as if what we say we believe is the District of Columbia. Like the nine- true. Not only does God have a right to teenth century decision of Scott vs. expect this of us, the world we live in does Sandford it divided this country morally too. The place for this demonstration to in ways that have endured and deepened begin is in the body of Christ, the church. to this very day. Some have suggested that it also changed the work of Francis There is a tradition (it is not in the Schaeffer. The early Schaeffer, it is said, Bible) that the world said about the Christians in the early church, contented himself with teaching; the later “Behold, how they love each other.” Schaeffer became a political activist. The As we read Acts and the epistles, we realize that these early Christians early Schaeffer was content to be the mis- were really struggling for a practic- sionary to the intellectuals; the later ing community. We realize that one Schaeffer tried to be the conscience of of the marks of the early church was a real community, a community that evangelicalism. The early Schaeffer was reached down all the way to their respectable; the later, troublesome. care for each other in their material Those who were surprised at the needs…. My favorite church in Acts and, I strength of the later Schaeffer’s stand guess, in all of history is the church against abortion in the 1970s had not been at Antioch. I love the church at paying close attention to the early Antioch. I commend to you to read again about it. It was a place where Schaeffer. It marked no change in his something new happened: the great, focus. Instead it was the inescapable proud Jews who despised the Gen- tiles… came to a breakthrough. They result of his doctrinal commitments. What could not be silent. They told their he referred to winsomely as “true truth,” Gentile neighbors about the gospel, i.e., moral and doctrinal absolutes, does and suddenly, on the basis of the blood of Christ and the Word of God, not change from generation to generation. the racial thing was solved. There It endures. The Christian’s calling is not were Jewish Christians and there just to understand it, but to act upon it. were Gentile Christians, and they were one!... To Francis Schaeffer, speaking of the free- And I love it for another reason. dom and dignity God has bestowed on There was a man called Niger in that human beings by making us in His image church and that means black. More than likely, he was a black man. The and redeeming us through the work of his church at Antioch on the basis of the Son and then failing to act to protect those blood of Christ encompassed the whole. There was a beauty that the made in His image would have been as Greek and the Roman world did not unthinkable as understanding the gospel know—and the world looked. And in its fullness and not responding in faith: then there was the preaching of the gospel. In one generation the church 58 spread from the Indus River to 22Francis A. Schaeffer, The Great Evangeli- Spain. If we want to touch our gen- eration, we must be no less than cal Disaster (Westchester: Crossway, this.11 1984) 51. 33See Gordon R. Lewis, “Schaeffer’s The Final Apologetic Apologetic Method,” in Reflections on In the end the distinguishing aspect of Francis Schaeffer, ed. Ronald W. Rue- the church to Schaeffer, “the mark of the gsegger (Grand Rapids: Academie, 1986) Christian,” is how believers live with one 69. another. There must be “visible love” dis- 44Schaeffer, “Two Contents, Two Reali- played among Christians, especially in the ties,” 414. face of our differences with one another. 55Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then This is the “the final apologetic,” the one Live? (Old Tappan: Revell, 1976) 19. essential element of any presentation of 66Schaeffer, “Two Contents, Two Reali- the gospel without which the world is jus- ties,” 416. tified in rejecting not the gospel itself but 77Ibid., 416-417. our presentation of it. Sound doctrine, giv- 88Walker Percy, “The Delta Factor,” in The ing honest answers to honest questions, Message in the Bottle (New York: Farrar, and practicing true spirituality are all Straus and Giroux, 1983) 9. worthy goals. Schaeffer’s challenge is that 99Francis A. Schaeffer, “He is There and He the church will never achieve them apart is not Silent,” in Francis Schaeffer Trilogy from a fourth: the demonstration of love (Westchester: Crossway, 1990) 299. in the body of Christ. The challenge to 10Francis A. Schaeffer, “Whatever Hap- speak and practice the truth in love is pened to the Human Race?” in The Com- without a doubt the most important and plete Works of Francis Schaeffer, vol. 5, A the most difficult legacy he leaves to the Christian View of the West (Westchester: church at the beginning of the twenty-first Crossway, 1982) 409-410. century. 11Schaeffer, “Two Contents, Two Reali- ties,” 420-421. To eat, to breathe to beget Is this all there is? Chance configuration of atom against atom Of god against god I cannot believe it. Come, Christian Triune God who lives, Here I am Shake the world again. F.A.S. (from the preface to No Little People)

ENDNOTE 11Francis A. Schaeffer, “Two Contents, Two Realities,” in The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer, vol. 3, A Christian View of Spirituality (Westchester: Crossway, 1982) 407. 59