Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For...

29
4 Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought and Life Stephen J. Wellum Stephen J. Wellum is an associate professor of Christian Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Wellum received his Ph.D. degree in theology from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and has also taught theology at the Associated Canadian Theological Schools and Northwest Baptist Theological College and Semi- nary in Canada. He has contributed to several publications and a collection of essays on theology and worldview issues. Why Study the Life and Thought of Francis Schaeffer? 1 There are two ways that this question could be asked. First, why study any his- torical figure? And second, why specifi- cally reflect on the life and thought of Francis Schaeffer? After all, what makes him so important to reflect on in contrast to other people? The simple answer to the first question is that we want to learn and be challenged by Christian men and women who have gone before us. In Scripture the theme of people serving as role models for us, both positively and even negatively, is abun- dantly clear. Paul encourages Timothy to follow his example, as he follows Christ (see 2 Tim 3:10-13). Hebrews 11 records for us the “Hall of Fame” of faith in order to challenge us to press on in our devo- tion and service to the Lord. As we exam- ine the lives of godly men and women, both their strengths and weaknesses, we learn how better to serve our Lord today. And often as we do so, we are awakened from our spiritual lethargy by unique servants of the Lord who sought, in their lives, to serve the Lord with their whole heart. Furthermore, it is important to study contemporary historic figures as well as those of the more distant past. Why? For the simple reason that contemporary people help us better to respond to the specific issues and challenges of our own day, not just the issues of a previous era. In this sense there is a parallel with the doing of theology. For just as theology must be constantly written to apply the unchanging Word to a changing world, so we need to study contemporary individu- als who can better help us to respond faithfully, without compromise, to present-day challenges that confront the church. But why study Francis Schaeffer? The answer to this second question is that there is probably no single figure that has affected and impacted evangelicalism in the latter half of the twentieth century more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri- ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting on the impact of Francis Schaeffer on evangelicalism, says this about his life and work: When Francis Schaeffer first appeared on the American scene in 1965, evangelicals hardly knew what to make of him. He was 53 years old. His Christian faith had been formed in the furnace of the fundamental- ist-modernist controversies of the 1930s, and he was a card-carrying member of the impeccably funda- mentalist Bible Presbyterian Church. He defended passionately the idea of the inerrancy of Scripture, a doc- trine that had already seen some slippage in evangelical circles. Yet this was no ordinary funda- mentalist preacher. He and his wife, Edith, had lived for ten years in a student commune they had started in the Swiss Alps. When he lectured, he wore an alpine hiking outfit— knickers, knee socks, walking shoes. By 1972 he had added to his already singular appearance long hair and a white tufted goat’s-chin beard. Most curious of all, he seldom quoted from the Bible. He was more apt to

Transcript of Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For...

Page 1: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

4

Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984):Lessons from His Thought and Life

Stephen J. Wellum

Stephen J. Wellum is an associate

professor of Christian Theology at The

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Dr. Wellum received his Ph.D. degree

in theology from Trinit y Evangelical

Divinity School, and has also taught

theology at the Associated Canadian

Theological Schools and Nor thwest

Baptist Theological College and Semi-

nary in Canada. He has contributed

to several publications and a collection

of essays on theology and worldview

issues.

Why Study the Life and Thoughtof Francis Schaeffer?1

There are two ways that this questioncould be asked. First, why study any his-torical figure? And second, why specifi-cally reflect on the life and thought ofFrancis Schaeffer? After all, what makeshim so important to reflect on in contrastto other people?

The simple answer to the first questionis that we want to learn and be challenged

by Christian men and women who havegone before us. In Scripture the theme ofpeople serving as role models for us, bothpositively and even negatively, is abun-dantly clear. Paul encourages Timothy tofollow his example, as he follows Christ(see 2 Tim 3:10-13). Hebrews 11 recordsfor us the “Hall of Fame” of faith in orderto challenge us to press on in our devo-tion and service to the Lord. As we exam-ine the lives of godly men and women,both their strengths and weaknesses, welearn how better to serve our Lord today.And often as we do so, we are awakenedfrom our spiritual lethargy by uniqueservants of the Lord who sought, in theirlives, to serve the Lord with their wholeheart.

Furthermore, it is important to studycontemporary historic figures as well asthose of the more distant past. Why? Forthe simple reason that contemporarypeople help us better to respond to thespecific issues and challenges of our ownday, not just the issues of a previous era.In this sense there is a parallel with thedoing of theology. For just as theology must

be constantly written to apply theunchanging Word to a changing world, sowe need to study contemporary individu-als who can better help us to respondfaithfully, without compromise, topresent-day challenges that confront thechurch.

But why study Francis Schaeffer? Theanswer to this second question is thatthere is probably no single figure that hasaffected and impacted evangelicalism inthe latter half of the twentieth centurymore than Francis Schaeffer. For thisreason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commentingon the impact of Francis Schaeffer onevangelicalism, says this about his life andwork:

When Francis Schaeffer firstappeared on the American scene in1965, evangelicals hardly knew whatto make of him. He was 53 years old.His Christian faith had been formedin the furnace of the fundamental-ist-modernist controversies of the1930s, and he was a card-carryingmember of the impeccably funda-mentalist Bible Presbyterian Church.He defended passionately the ideaof the inerrancy of Scripture, a doc-trine that had already seen someslippage in evangelical circles.

Yet this was no ordinary funda-mentalist preacher. He and his wife,Edith, had lived for ten years in astudent commune they had startedin the Swiss Alps. When he lectured,he wore an alpine hiking outfit—knickers, knee socks, walking shoes.By 1972 he had added to his alreadysingular appearance long hair and awhite tufted goat’s-chin beard. Mostcurious of all, he seldom quotedfrom the Bible. He was more apt to

Page 2: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

5

talk about the philosophical impor-tance of Henry Miller (then regardedas the most pornographic writer inAmerican letters).

During the next two decades theSchaeffers organized a multiple-thrust ministry that reshaped Amer-ican evangelicalism. Perhaps nointellectual save C. S. Lewis affectedthe thinking of evangelicals moreprofoundly; perhaps no leader ofthe period save Billy Graham lefta deeper stamp on the movement asa whole. Together the Schaeffersgave currency to the idea of inten-tional Christian community, prod-ded evangelicals out of their culturalghetto, inspired an army of evan-gelicals to become serious scholars,encouraged women who choseroles as mothers and homemakers,mentored the leaders of the NewChristian Right, and solidifiedpopular evangelical opposition toabortion.2

In a similar vein, Harold O. J. Brown sumsup the influence and impact of FrancisSchaeffer by stating the following:

There is no other important Chris-tian thinker of our era who hastackled as many fundamental intel-lectual, philosophical, and theologi-cal issues as Schaeffer did. But he didthis not in an effort to construct acomprehensive philosophy of his-tory like Oswald Spengler (TheDecline of the West) or Arnold Toyn-bee (A Study of History). Even whendealing with the big issues that werehis specialty, Schaeffer treated themnot as theoretical problems to be fit-ted into a comprehensive worldview, but as questions that indi-vidual persons needed to answer inorder to find meaning in their lives.

There are not many Christianthinkers who have dealt with asmany of the great issues of theologyand philosophy as Schaeffer did,and no one else has so revealed theirrelevance to us. Schaeffer treatedthem as vital to the understandingof our own life and its meaning,rather than as abstractions reservedfor the advanced seminar. Schaefferwas unusual among deep thinkers

in his desire to have ordinary peopleunderstand the great issues of phi-losophy and theology and theirimplications for ordinary living.3

In addition, we may provide furtherjustification for our investigation ofFrancis Schaeffer by noting his signifi-cance and impact in three importantareas: the personal, theological, andsocial.4 In terms of the personal, Schaef-fer’s initial impact was not made insti-tutionally, that is, through academic,educational institutions, or even throughthe publishing industry. Rather, his great-est influence was made more indirectly,through his own personal contact withindividuals whom he came to know andwhose lives he changed. His influence, inother words, was not being part of theevangelical establishment, but insteadbeing quite independent of it. For Schaef-fer, personal evangelism and discipleshipwere no cliché. It was through his life andministry at L’Abri in Switzerland, farremoved from America, that he and hiswife, Edith, touched the lives of countlessnumbers of individuals—many of whomwould later become key evangelical lead-ers. Certainly, for those of us who aspireto influence men and women for the gos-pel, it would be wise for us to learn les-sons from the life of such a man and todiscover afresh the importance of the per-sonal touch in our interaction with people.5

Theologically, we may note Schaeffer’ssignificance by the fact that he was instru-mental in calling evangelicals to onceagain take seriously key truths that weretending to be de-emphasized or evenbeing denied. In particular, Schaefferchallenged evangelicalism to re-assert itscommitment to the concept of truth, or ashe stated it—“true truth”—in light of agrowing trend in academic theology, the

Page 3: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

6

church, and the general culture towardsa denial of truth and a full-orbed plural-ism. That is why he championed, literallyto his death-bed, the need to affirm with-out equivocation the full authority andinerrancy of Scripture as well as such cru-cial issues as: the historicity of Genesis1-11, the doctrine of creation, the central-ity of the doctrine of God, and the exclu-sivity of Jesus Christ as the way, the truth,and the life.6 It is also why he stood sostrongly against the theology of neo-orthodoxy7 that was beginning to beembraced by some evangelicals becausehe believed that if it were accepted itwould undercut the truth and veracity ofthe gospel. Probably today more than anyother day we need to think through thetheological challenges that Schaeffer leftus with. Was he right? And if so, are therelessons today that we may learn fromhim as we attempt to stand for the truthof the gospel?

Socially, Schaeffer is also an importantfigure for our consideration. In the 1970swhen evangelicals were doing little on thesocial front, he almost single-handedlychallenged millions of evangelicals to takean active role in shaping their society andits values in addition to giving them atheological warrant for doing so.8 AsBrown observes, “the 1973 decision of theUnited States Supreme Court mandatingabortion on demand, Roe v. Wade was akind of spark in the powderkeg forSchaeffer.”9 For a long time, Schaeffer hadbeen warning people that the worldviewof the post-Christian west was heading toa de-valuation of human beings, and thusfor him, the Roe v. Wade decision was adecisive call to action. In 1979, he alongwith C. Everett Koop and Franky Schaef-fer produced the film series Whatever

Happened to the Human Race? that was

instrumental in mobilizing sleepy evan-gelicals to action, and challenging themto get involved in the political arena. It isnot an exaggeration to say that the rise ofCrisis Pregnancy Centers, the ChristianAction Council, and even the MoralMajority, were directly linked to the influ-ence of Francis Schaeffer. What were hisreasons for social action? Were they valid?And what may we learn from him as weseek to be obedient to our Lord in our day?

But there is one last reason why we needto study the life and thought of FrancisSchaeffer and it is this: the mixed reactionto him from evangelical scholars providesa window by which we may view an everincreasingly divided evangelicalism. LaneDennis, in commenting on various criticsof Schaeffer’s thought who have called iteverything from “sophomoric bombast,”“simplistic,” and “atrophied” to a “puer-ile concatenation of unsupported judg-ments,” notes that “one doesn’t usuallyhear these kind of adjectives in polite orscholarly conversation; apparently Schaef-fer has touched a raw nerve.”10 Interest-ingly, Dennis observes that this kind ofreaction seems to come mostly from aca-demicians within evangelical colleges,rather than from evangelical scholars ofsecular schools.11 Why? Why the negativereaction from certain quarters of evangel-icalism, especially from the academics?

Some answer this question by statingthat Schaeffer was not a real “scholar” andthat is the reason for some of the negativereaction. However, for a variety of reasonsthis answer will not do.12 Rather, it seemsthat Michael Hamilton is more on trackwhen he argues that the diverse reactionsto Schaeffer, both negatively and posi-tively, reflect a major seismic divide withinevangelicalism. Schaeffer represents, inthe words of Hamilton, “the rougher

Page 4: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

7

edge” of evangelicalism in contrast to BillyGraham and others who represent a“smoother edge.” The “smoother edge”is the part of evangelicalism that repre-sents within evangelicalism the “moder-ate middle”—a middle that attempts todefuse controversy and wish the best foreveryone, who seem to be willing tocooperate with anyone who will let thempreach the gospel.13

On the other hand, Schaeffer representsthe side of evangelicalism that is willingto work with others for common socialcauses as cobelligerents but not when itcomes to the proclamation of the gospel.It is a side that is truth driven, so much sothat it recognizes that seemingly “minor”shifts of doctrine are significant and thusmust be taken seriously. It is a side thatcalls for a “loving confrontation” in mat-ters of truth and life; otherwise compro-mise to the gospel will take place. It is aside of evangelicalism that this author isconvinced we need to identify with today.That is why, in a time in which evan-gelicalism finds itself divided over so manyissues, including some major doctrinalones, it is wise to reflect on the life andthought of Francis Schaeffer—a servant ofthe Lord who stood firm for the gospel inhis generation so that we may better learnhow to do so in our generation.14

How do I propose to look at the life andthought of Schaeffer? First, we will beginwith a brief chronology of his life toremind us, or in some cases, to introduceus to his life, context, and ministry. Sec-ond, we will highlight four lessons we canlearn from Schaeffer’s thought, broadlyconsidered. Finally, we will think throughtwo lessons we can learn from his lifeand ministry.

A Brief Chronology of the Lifeof Francis Schaeffer15

Early Years• Francis Schaeffer was born on January30, 1912, in Germantown, Pennsylvania.He was the only child of working-classparents of German ancestry. Schaeffer’sparents gave lip service to Christianity, buthe did not consider himself raised in aChristian home.• On his own, he attended a liberal Pres-byterian Church. However, by his ownconfession he did not find any satisfyinganswers to the basic questions of lifefrom liberal Christianity. As a result, hebecame an agnostic during his highschool years. During his latter highschool years he began to read philosophyin order to discover answers to life’sbasic questions. Out of curiosity he alsoread the Bible. In 1930, after six months ofreading Scripture, beginning with Gen-esis, he became a Christian. He was con-vinced that the Bible was true and that itprovided the only adequate answers tothe basic philosophical questions of life.• After his conversion, he left trade schoolto complete college preparation classes atnight. Although he had done poorly inschool up to this point in time, his gradesmarkedly improved. Against his father’swishes, he began studies in 1931 atHampden-Sydney College in Virginia. Hegraduated magna cum laude in 1935. Hewas selected the “outstanding Christian”in his class.• The historic and theological context ofthis period of time was the fundamental-ist-modernist controversies. By the early1930s Schaeffer’s own denomination, theNorthern Presbyterian Church, was beingtorn apart, both in the schools and in thechurches. Interestingly, on one occasion in1932, a sponsored youth speaker spoke on

Page 5: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

8

why the Bible is not God’s Word and whyJesus is not the Son of God. During thediscussion time that ensued, Schaeffer, asa young Christian, rose to defend historicChristianity as best he could. But to hissurprise there was one other person whostood and gave a very articulate defensefrom the Scripture as well as utilizingarguments from the works of J. GreshamMachen. Her name was Edith Seville. OnJuly 26, 1935, Francis and Edith weremarried.

Seminary Years• In the fall of 1935, Francis Schaefferentered Westminster Theological Semi-nary. Westminster had been founded in1929 by J. Gresham Machen and otherleading Presbyterian scholars who soughtto provide a conservative alternative totheological liberalism. During his time atWestminster, Schaeffer was greatly influ-enced by the work of Machen, CorneliusVan Til, and Allan MacRae of BiblicalTheological Seminary. Interestingly,Schaeffer saw himself as followingthrough on the presuppositional apolo-getic program of Van Til, but sadly, in lateryears, there was a rift between the twomen, particularly from Van Til’s side.• In 1936, the Northern PresbyterianChurch defrocked Machen for his conser-vative stand. This led to conservativesbreaking from the denomination, includ-ing Schaeffer. Unfortunately, due to someconflict within the conservative groups atWestminster in 1937 a new seminary wasformed, Faith Theological Seminary inWilmington, Delaware, under the leader-ship of Allan MacRae. Schaeffer moved toFaith to complete his studies and gradu-ated from Faith in 1938. Schaeffer wouldlater look back at this time in his lifeand regret some of the bickering and in-

fighting that had occurred among the con-servatives. He would later call for the needof a “loving confrontation” that wouldsimultaneously stand for truth and a vis-ible love.

Pastoring Years• From 1938-1948, Schaeffer pastored vari-ous Presbyterian churches in Grove Cityand Chester, Pennsylvania, as well asSt. Louis, Missouri. It was during theirtime in St. Louis that he and Edith beganan organization called “Children forChrist”—an outreach ministry to childrenthat eventually spread to other churchesand denominations.• In 1947, Schaeffer was sent by the Inde-pendent Board for Presbyterian ForeignMissions and the Foreign RelationsDepartment of the American Council ofChristian Churches to evaluate the spiri-tual needs of youth and the church’sconfrontation with theological liberalismin post-war Europe. As a result of histhree months in Europe, Schaeffer sensedthat God was calling his family to minis-ter in Europe.

The Move to Europe• In 1948 the Schaeffers moved toLausanne, Switzerland to be missionariesto Europe. By this time, the Schaeffers hadthree daughters, Priscilla, Susan, andDeborah. Their son, Franky, was born in1952.• As they came to Europe they first estab-lished “Children for Christ,” as a mission-ary outreach to children. Schaeffer alsocontinued to warn about the dangers oftheological liberalism, as well as the subtlethreat of neo-orthodoxy. In 1949, theSchaeffers moved to the mountain villageof Champéry, Switzerland.• In 1951, Schaeffer experienced a major

Page 6: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

9

spiritual crisis in his life for at least tworeasons. First, he did not see the reality ofthe gospel at work in the lives of thosewho fought for historic Christianity andthis concerned him. Second, he acknowl-edged that in his own life his experienceof the Lord was not as vibrant as it oncehad been. This crisis caused him tore-think everything—even the truthful-ness of Christianity. From this experience,Schaeffer came to the firm conclusion thatthere were good and sufficient reasons toknow that the God of the Bible doesindeed exist and that Christianity is true.He also came to a better understandingof the finished work of Christ and thework of the Holy Spirit in the lives ofbelievers. It was from this experience thathis book, True Spirituality, was later born.More than that, it was out of this crisis thatL’Abri was born. Schaeffer always saidthat without this time of struggle to findreality in the Christian life, L’Abri wouldnever have come to exist.• In 1955, through a series of miraculouscircumstances, the Schaeffers movedinto Chalet les Mélèzes in Huémoz, Swit-zerland. They not only received thenecessary funds to purchase the Chalet,but were granted visas to stay in Switzer-land after being told by the Swiss govern-ment that they had to leave the countrypermanently.

L’Abri (“The Shelter”)• L’Abri Fellowship was officially bornin 1955. It began with friends of Priscillacoming to the Schaeffer home from theuniversity and asking questions aboutChristianity, truth, and the issues of life.L’Abri operated on four basic principles:(1) They would not ask for money, butwould make their needs known to God;(2) They would not recruit staff but

depend on God to send the right people;(3) They would only plan short-term soas to depend on God’s guidance; and (4)They would not publicize themselves buttrust God to send them people in need.• At first, meetings and services were heldin the Schaeffer’s home. But then it movedto an abandoned Protestant church. Byword of mouth, the news spread to uni-versity students that there was a place inthe Swiss Alps where one could gethonest answers to life’s deepest questions.In short order, students were coming toL’Abri every weekend. They developed apattern of meals, walks, talks, and aSunday church service all geared towardproviding an atmosphere that wouldstimulate conversation about philosophi-cal and religious ideas.• The key emphasis of L’Abri was onhonest answers to honest questions in thecontext of a hospitable environment andobservable love. In the early days therewas no thought of books, films, andaudiotapes. In fact, in the case of audio-tapes, this only came about reluctantly bya microphone being hidden amongstsome flowers and the conversations of theevening then taped. It was only whenSchaeffer realized that the tapes could beused to reach others that he allowed forthe tape program to begin. Eventuallypeople came to study and work at L’Abri.Already by 1957, 25 people were comingevery weekend.• L’Abri expanded beyond Switzerland.In 1958, it began in England. Today,L’Abri’s are found all over the world insuch places as Australia, Holland, India,South Korea, and Sweden, as well as inthe USA in Massachusetts and Minne-sota.16

• By 1960, L’Abri had grown to such anextent that it attracted the attention of Time

Page 7: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

10

magazine. Tapes were now being distrib-uted worldwide and Schaeffer was gettinginvitations to speak in Europe and NorthAmerica. These were difficult times atL’Abri as well. With more and more stu-dents coming, money and food was short.• In 1965, Schaeffer traveled back to NorthAmerica and held lectures in Boston. Hethen went to Wheaton College and gavelectures that later became the basis for hisbook, The God Who is There. At this time,the students greatly appreciated him, butthe academic community was muchslower in accepting him. At Wheaton, forexample, he spoke on issues that most inevangelical circles had never heard of orwere not allowed to discuss such as thefilms of Ingmar Bergman and FedricoFellini and the writings of Albert Camus,Jean-Paul Sartre, and Martin Heidegger.• During the next ten years, the Schaeffersbecame one of the most well-known fami-lies in evangelicalism. Francis publishednumerous books and booklets, most ofwhich came out of lectures he had beengiving since the founding of L’Abri, andEdith also published a number of booksdealing with marriage, the family, theol-ogy, and the L’Abri story.17

The 1970s• In 1974, Schaeffer spoke at the Interna-tional Conference on World Evangeliza-tion in Lausanne, Switzerland where hestrongly emphasized the importance ofbiblical inerrancy. Later, in 1977, he helpedfound the International Council on Bibli-cal Inerrancy.• It was also during the ’70s that hebegan to speak out against abortion dueto the Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Courtdecision. In 1977 he began a 22 city semi-nar and speaking tour for the film series“How Should We Then Live?” He also

began work on the film series “WhateverHappened to the Human Race?” withC. Everett Koop and Franky Schaeffer,which resulted in a speaking tour in 1979.• In his works, Schaeffer’s critique ofculture and his defense of historic Chris-tianity led him to also speak up on suchissues as: doctrinal and life purity, abor-tion, euthanasia, ecology, war and peace,and civil rights. Schaeffer spoke long andhard against the church standing for thestatus quo, especially in terms of her adop-tion of the American philosophy of lifethat had permeated society since the’50s—living merely for “personal peaceand affluence.” He called for a new gen-eration of Christians who would truly be“revolutionary” in their stand for truth inboth doctrine and life.

The 1980s• In the 1980s, Schaeffer became increas-ingly alienated from evangelical academ-ics and politically liberal evangelicals dueto his perceived shift to “conservatism.”This was especially due to his publicationof A Christian Manifesto (1981) that notonly praised the rise of the Moral Major-ity, but also called for Christians to standagainst abortion and, if necessary, to prac-tice civil disobedience. Interestingly,Schaeffer himself did not see any shift inhis thinking from the ’70s. Rather, he sawhis work in the ’80s as the logical exten-sion of a commitment to the practice oftruth and an outworking of the lordshipof Christ over every area of life, whetherthat be in the womb, in the church, or theuniversity classroom.• In 1984, while still battling cancer thathe had been diagnosed with in 1978,Schaeffer, literally on his death-bed, dida thirteen-city tour visiting ten Christiancolleges in connection with his last book,

Page 8: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

11

The Great Evangelical Disaster. In this lasttour, he passionately spoke on behalf ofthe gospel, warning and pleading with theevangelical church not to compromise bib-lical authority in both doctrine and prac-tice, even naming names of those whomhe believed had done so. He called for anew generation of Christians to take astand for truth, to be in his words—“radicals for Christ.”• On May 15, 1984, a month after the tourwas complete he died in Rochester,Minnesota.

Lessons to Learn from the Thoughtof Francis SchaefferIdeas Have Consequences

One of the great legacies of FrancisSchaeffer’s work was to show us that“ideas have consequences.”18 Eventhough he was not entirely correct in someof his analysis, Schaeffer was exactly rightthat western society has seen a “line ofdespair”—a slow process by which ideastrickle down from philosophy to art,music, the general culture and, finally,theology.19 The cultural mess we live indid not come from nowhere, rather it hasa long history. As Schaeffer reminded usover and over again, there is a flow to his-tory as ideas work themselves out—bothfor good or ill.

In addition, Schaeffer taught us that tounderstand our present time, we mustalso grasp the flow of intellectual historythat precedes us, and the effects it has andwill have on us as people eventually acton their beliefs. In fact, Schaeffer warnedus, if we do not think through this intel-lectual history, we will not only mis-understand our own times, but we willalso have nothing constructive to say toour present age. We will inevitably be likethe proverbial frog in the pot of water that

is oblivious to the fact that the water isbeing slowly heated and that if he doesnot jump out of the pot immediately thencertain destruction will result.

For Christian leaders, pastors, andteachers, this lesson is of utmost impor-tance. If we are to remain faithful to ourLord and to his people; if we are to havesomething worthwhile to say to our gen-eration; if we are to be those who trulyunderstand their times and speak to thepressing issues of the day, then it will re-quire nothing less than a profound under-standing of the day and age in which weare called to serve and minister, as well asa wholehearted devotion to the Lord andhis Word. In this regard, Schaeffer oftenloved to quote the famous statement byMartin Luther,

If I profess with the loudest voiceand clearest exposition every por-tion of the truth of God exceptprecisely that little point which theworld and the devil are at thatmoment attacking, I am not confess-ing Christ, however boldly I may beprofessing Christ. Where the battlerages, there the loyalty of the soldieris proved, and to be steady on all thebattlefield besides, is mere flight anddisgrace if he flinches at that point.20

This was not theoretical for FrancisSchaeffer. For him, this was a matter oflife and death. We must grasp, he warned,the importance of “ideas” in order rightlyto understand our times. For, if we do not,we will be swept away by the “spirit ofour age” without our even being awareof what has happened to us.

The Battle of the Day: The Idea of TruthWhat, then, for Schaeffer was the key

“idea” to be grasped today? From ananalysis of intellectual history, whatshould the church learn in order to remain

Page 9: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

12

faithful to the Lord today? What is our

battle? For Schaeffer, the answer is beyonddispute; our battle today is a battle for thevery idea and concept of truth. Schaefferstates:

The present chasm between the gen-erations has been brought aboutalmost entirely by a change in theconcept of truth.

Wherever you look today the newconcept holds the field. The consen-sus about us is almost monolithic,whether you review the arts, litera-ture or simply read the newspapersand magazines such as Time, Life,Newsweek, The Listener or TheObserver…. It is like suffocating in aparticularly bad London fog. Andjust as fog cannot be kept out bywalls or doors, so this consensuscomes in around us, until the roomwe live in is no longer unpolluted,and yet we hardly realize what hashappened.

The tragedy of our situation todayis that men and women are beingfundamentally affected by the newway of looking at truth, and yet theyhave never even analyzed the driftwhich has taken place. Young peoplefrom Christian homes are broughtup in the old framework of truth.Then they are subjected to the mod-ern framework. In time they becomeconfused because they do not under-stand the alternatives with whichthey are being presented. Confusionbecomes bewilderment, and beforelong they are overwhelmed. This isunhappily true not only of youngpeople, but of many pastors, Chris-tian educators, evangelists and mis-sionaries as well.

So this change in the concept of theway we come to knowledge and truth isthe most crucial problem, as I under-stand it, facing Christianity today.21

In the current literature, whether thatis philosophical, scientific, literary, ortheological, the term “postmodernism” isoften used to describe what Schaeffer wasreferring to. Even though Schaefferhimself never used the term, he certainly

anticipated and described it long beforeits popular use.22 Schaeffer had a knackof doing this. He often could “see” whereideas were going because he took seriouslythe maxim, “ideas have consequences.”

In today’s use, “postmodernism” hascome to mean a mindset that is tightlylinked with a denial of truth in any objec-tive, universal sense. It is often contrastedwith “modernism,” which reflects muchof the Enlightenment spirit—a spirit,interestingly enough, that borrowed muchfrom Christianity. Like Christianity, it toobelieved that truth was objective and uni-versal and that reason could gain truth byresearch and investigation. However,unlike Christianity, it sought to discovertruth apart from dependence upon Godand his spoken Word. Instead of follow-ing the Christian motto of “faith seekingunderstanding” and underscoring thepriority of divine revelation, modernismsought to follow the agenda of “I under-stand in order to believe.” In this sense,then, modernism sought to subsume alltruth claims, whether philosophical orreligious, under the “authority” of humanreason independent of God’s Word.

Postmodernism, on the other hand, isreally modernism that has traveled itsroad to its logical end, and is thus muchmore epistemologically self-conscious ofits starting points and results.23 In thissense, postmodernism takes seriously theEnlightenment project centered in theautonomous self. But then, ironically, itrightly concludes that if the Enlighten-ment view is correct, truth could never beuniversal. Why? The simple reason is thatfinite human beings and communities aretoo historically situated and sociologicallyconditioned to ever yield a “God’s eyepoint of view,” i.e., an objective, univer-sal, unbiased viewpoint. Truth, in the end,

Page 10: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

13

cannot be what modernism hoped it was;rather it must be perspectival, provisional,and ultimately, what the community mostvalues, i.e., pragmatic. Of course, ifpostmodernism is true, in contrast to thebeliefs of modernism, then any claims ofindividuals or communities to know “thetruth” is necessarily wrong—an interest-ing irony indeed. Postmodernism, at itsheart, is a distrust of anyone who says,“That’s the way it is” or “This is the truth,”and as such, it tends to a full-blownpluralism, relativism, and skepticism. AsD. A. Carson reminds us, today “the onlyabsolute creed is the creed of plural-ism”24 —i.e., everyone’s viewpoint iswelcome whether it pertains to philo-sophical, moral, or religious matters.

Even though Francis Schaeffer neverused the word “postmodernism,” hecertainly warned us of the idea and itsconsequences. In fact, it was this “idea”that he labored continually in his booksand lectures for us to understand andgrasp. At the heart of so many issues thatconfront the church, he argued, is an epis-temological shift that has taken place inwestern thought and culture, a shift thatwe now call postmodernism, a shift awayfrom truth, or what he called “truetruth.”25 And, he also warned us, if we donot understand this shift and take it seri-ously and confront it, we will not be fight-ing the battle of our day as good soldiersof Jesus Christ. In the end, our teaching,preaching, apologetics, and evangelismwill fall on deaf ears since it will notaddress adequately our generation. Ourgeneration will either hear the presenta-tion of the gospel as a relic of a by-goneera or in the categories of a postmodernsociety, thus relativizing the gospel.26

Ultimately what is at stake today, main-tained Schaeffer, is an entire worldview

battle. No longer is the battle for thegospel over this or that point, but overthe whole structure and framework—abattle of life and death proportions andconsequences.

It is this last observation that needs tobe learned afresh from Francis Schaeffer.Schaeffer’s great concern was for the proc-lamation of the gospel and the buildingup of the church. He wanted to speakfaithfully to his generation in such a waythat the gospel was heard for what itreally was. That is why he labored to helppeople understand intellectual history—not for curiosity’s sake—but for the pur-pose of better understanding the times. Inall the legitimate discussion and debateover the accuracy of Schaeffer’s interpre-tation of such people as Thomas Aquinas,Georg Hegel, Søren Kierkegaard, variousartists and musicians, and even KarlBarth, most acknowledge that Schaeffer’soverall analysis is correct—an analysisthat has been too often forgotten in bothits theory and practical implications.Regardless of all of the details, Schaefferwas right to stress the incredible episte-mological shifts that had taken place inwestern society, shifts that have incrediblepractical consequences. Let us briefly high-light three of those practical implicationsthat Schaeffer warned us about that areof particular importance for the churchtoday.

The Shift to ExperienceWith the loss of truth there is an increas-

ing shift to experience, but an experiencethat is often devoid of content and truth.In his analysis of western thought,Schaeffer argued that modern manincreasingly began to view the world in anaturalistic way.27 In science, there was ashift from viewing the uniformity of natu-

Page 11: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

14

ral causes in a controlled system by whichGod continually sustains that system andcan even intervene in it if he so chooses,to a closed system that shuts God out ofthe system. In philosophy, especially in thewest, there was a growing Enlightenmentpush towards “rationalism,”28 that is, amindset that sought to employ humanreason in such a way that it increasinglyacted independently of divine revelationin order to yield a unified world and lifeview. But, as Schaeffer claimed, these shiftseventually led to a dichotomous view ofreality, which he called “the lower andupper story,” as evidenced in such dialec-tics as the “nature-freedom” and “phenom-ena-noumena” divide of Immanuel Kant.29

The problem with these dialecticalviews of reality, Schaeffer contended, isthat they leave us with a terribly dividedview of the world. Human reason actingindependently of divine revelation has noway of reconciling how in the “lowerstory” (i.e., the realm of “nature”) thisnaturalistic, determined, cause and effectimpersonal world can give a rationalgrounding to the “upper story” (i.e., therealm of “freedom”) in which we try tofind meaning, values, purpose, and free-dom. So what are human beings to do?Do they live consistently with the impli-cations of what their reason leads them toconclude in the “lower story”—that theyare determined and meaningless? Well,some try to. But, as Schaeffer observed,what Scripture teaches is that because thisview of reality is wrong and all people aremade in God’s image, it is nigh impossibleto live with such a view. Instead, whatpeople do in practice is give up the possi-bility of uniting these dichotomousrealms, that is, they give up the hope oftruth in the sense of a unified worldview,and then make the move towards irratio-

nality. They argue for meaning, values,purpose, and freedom, but apart from arational base. They live by “faith” but afaith that has little or no content and ra-tional grounding. They place in the “up-per story,” as Schaeffer emphasized re-peatedly, a focus on experience, but an ex-perience that is open to anything; an ex-perience that can be as diverse as drugsand sex in the 1960s to new age spiritual-ity in the 1980-90s.30 Thus, for Schaeffer,the best way to characterize “post-mod-ern” people (or as he stated it, “modern,modern”) is that they are those who livewith the dichotomy between the “lowerand upper story.” For him, this was notjust a clever statement; it was the heart ofthe matter.

So what practical implications does thishave for us today? One massive implica-tion it has, Schaeffer claimed, is in ourevangelism. In our proclamation of thegospel, we must constantly remember thatwe are preaching to people who live withthe dichotomy. And unless we anticipatehow they will hear what we are saying,we run the risk of not communicating tothem properly and even making convertswho “believe” in Jesus as just another“upper story” experience divorced fromtruth, rationality, and reality. In fact,Schaeffer’s critique of evangelicalism,both theologically and practically, wascentered on this exact point.

On the one hand, he was concerned thatevangelicals in their evangelism weredownplaying doctrine and content forexperience. In calling people to savingfaith we must make clear that gospelrealities communicate “true truth,” con-fronting people with the “God who isreally there” and that faith is not a blindleap, but rooted and grounded in truth.Experience is important, and Schaeffer

Page 12: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

15

strongly emphasized that fact, but it mustnot be divorced from truth.31 On the otherhand, in the area of academic theology, hewas concerned that evangelicals wereadopting too much of the theology of neo-orthodoxy. He believed that it was a mis-take of gigantic proportions to argue aposition, such as Karl Barth’s, that allowedfor the possibility of mistakes in Scripturethat did not negatively affect our faith inthe Lord Jesus Christ. He viewed Barth’stheology as another example of the ten-dency of contemporary thought to di-chotomize reality and to divorce “faith”and theology from rational grounding andverifiable history.32

In these points, Francis Schaeffer is cor-rect. Evangelicalism, especially today,must not lose the issue of truth, content,and doctrine. Experience is important. Butexperience must always be grounded inthe truth of God’s Word. Given thetendency of our generation to appeal toexperience, we must be careful that we arenot conformed to our age. It mattersgreatly what we believe and, ultimately,whom you believe in. Not all “faith” or“faiths” are equal. This leads me to a sec-ond practical implication that Schaefferwarned us about.

The Challenge of Religious PluralismWith the loss of truth, there will be an

increasing emphasis on religious plural-ism and a downplaying of the exclusivityof the gospel. When Schaeffer spoke ofreligious pluralism, he was not referringto the empirical observation that there aremany religions in the world and that evenin the west there is an increasing growthof religions where Christianity once waspredominant. Rather, he was referringto the mindset that did not allow thatany one religion was true or better than

another. He saw this as a practical conse-quence of a denial of truth.

For those of us living at the beginningof the twenty-first century, we are con-fronted by this attitude everywhere. WhenThe Southern Baptist Convention sendsout prayer letters and says that Jewish andHindu people need to be evangelized be-cause they are lost, we know the kind ofreaction that we receive from those out-side the church, and sadly even from thosewho identify with the church. What is in-teresting about Schaeffer at this point wasthat he saw this coming way back in the1960s.33 He saw that a major implicationof the loss of truth is that a full-orbed plu-ralism will be put in its place. And part ofour calling in our generation is to stand atthis point, without compromise, proclaim-ing an exclusive Christ in an inclusive,pluralistic age.

The De-valuation of Human LifeWith the loss of truth there is a third

practical implication, namely the de-valu-ation of human life. I have already mademention of this above and I will allude toit below, but it is important to point outthat Schaeffer’s prediction that the post-Christian west would begin to devalue lifewas a prediction rooted in his analysis ofthe shift of ideas that was taking place inthe west away from a Christian under-standing of the world to a modernist andeventual postmodernist understandingof reality. Schaeffer had been warningpeople for years that the worldview ofthe west was moving in the direction ofinterpreting reality solely in terms of animpersonal, closed system. Of course theentailment of this was not only that chem-istry and physics were interpreted withina “closed system” but so also were thehumanities—psychology, sociology, lit-

Page 13: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

16

erature, and even theology. In this, therewas a massive turn to the impersonal,which, Schaeffer predicted, would lead toa de-valuation of human beings.

Of course, Schaeffer’s prediction wasexactly right. Ethical issues and debatescommon today—abortion, infanticide,euthanasia, cloning—are all evidences ofthe fact that the value of human life is upfor grabs. That is why Schaeffer took thestand he did on the social front. It wasnot a stand divorced from his theology;rather it was precisely because he saw thatideas have consequences and that truthdemands action.

As I have stated, Schaeffer’s constantemphasis that “ideas have consequences”is one of his great legacies that we neglectto our peril. Moreover, we need to learnfrom Schaeffer to remain faithful to theLord today; to proclaim the gospel in sucha way that effectively communicates topeople; and to prepare Christians tounderstand their world and live in it insuch a way that they are not molded byit. As he taught us, these issues are notmerely academic; they are a matter of lifeand death.

The Importance ofWorldview Thinking

Francis Schaeffer not only taught usthat “ideas have consequences,” he alsoreminded us that the crucial “ideas” atissue are ultimately worldview debates.Although, this is not a new observation,it is one that, until recently, has often beenneglected.34 Given the tremendous shiftsthat have taken place in society, it is im-portant to realize that we are engaged ina battle not over merely this or that pointof Christian truth, but over entire compet-ing worldview structures.

Schaeffer spoke of these worldview dif-

ferences in terms of presuppositionaldifferences.35 He argued that in the westat the beginning of the twentieth century,everyone—Christian and non-Chris-tian alike—were working from basicallythe same presuppositions, influencedstrongly by a Christian view of reality.Even though it could be argued that thenon-Christian had no right to act on thesepresuppositions, given his rejection ofthe Christian worldview, still it could besaid that there was a commonality inthinking. But eventually as people beganto act upon their presuppositions in amore consistent fashion, which led themfurther away from a Christian view of theworld, many Christians did not noticewhat had happened. And so, as Schaffercomments, “The flood-waters of secularthought and liberal theology over-whelmed the Church because the leadersdid not understand the importance ofcombating a false set of presuppositions.They largely fought the battle on thewrong ground and so, instead of beingahead in both defense and communica-tion, they lagged woefully behind. Thiswas a real weakness which it is hard, eventoday, to rectify among evangelicals.”36

Furthermore, this lack of worldviewthinking, Schaeffer argued, is also due tothe kind of education we received,whether it is Christian or secular. Heastutely observed that in our education weoften tend towards specialization withoutseeing the interrelationships between dis-ciplines and thus the “big picture,” i.e.,worldview. As such, we are in danger ofnot seeing how various ideas relate to oneanother and thus the consequences ofthose ideas. He states,

Today we have a weakness in oureducational process in failing tounderstand the natural associations

Page 14: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

17

between the disciplines. We tend tostudy all our disciplines in unrelatedparallel lines. This tends to be truein both Christian and secular edu-cation. This is one of the reasons whyevangelical Christians have beentaken by surprise at the tremendousshift that has come in our generation.We have studied our exegesis asexegesis, our theology as theology,our philosophy as philosophy; westudy something about art as art; westudy music as music, withoutunderstanding that these are thingsof man, and the things of man arenever unrelated parallel lines.37

This is an important lesson to learn,especially in our day. In many ways, weare back with Paul at Athens preaching toan audience and context that is pluralis-tic, pagan, and foreign to Christianity interms of worldview structures (Acts 17).That is why Francis Schaeffer repeatedlyargued, appealing to texts such as Acts 17,that we must do “pre-evangelism,” whichhe closely associated with apologetics. Heargued that there were two purposes ofapologetics. First, to defend the Christianworldview from attacks against it and togive people reasons why we believe Chris-tianity to be true. But there is also a sec-ond purpose of apologetics that is closelyassociated with evangelism and it is this:we are to communicate the gospel to our

generation in terms they can understand.Thus, part of our task in evangelism andapologetics is to present the gospel forwhat it really is, within its own worldviewstructure, so that people will hear correctlythe claims and demands of the gospelupon them.38

How this practically worked itself outin the life of Schaeffer was that in his evan-gelism and presentation of Christianity hewould not begin with “accept Christ asSavior”; instead he would begin whereScripture begins, starting with the doc-

trine of God, establishing the worldviewstructures of Christianity grounded in thedoctrine of creation, revelation, and thehistoric fall, and then and only then moveto redemption, pointing people to theLord Jesus Christ, who alone is their onlyhope.39 Why? Because, like Paul at Ath-ens, he knew that unless he first devel-oped a biblical frame of reference, i.e.,worldview, the proclamation of thegospel would not make sense and hishearers would not hear the gospel forwhat it truly is, in its own categories andon its own terms. Schaeffer, like Paul, wasvery concerned that the gospel is notwrongly dismissed or re-interpreted intoanother alien worldview framework, forthat only leads to a distortion of thegospel message. And especially in ourpluralistic, postmodern, inclusive age, inorder to present Jesus Christ as not justanother god or savior, but the exclusiveLord, Savior, and Judge, Schaeffer sawthat it was imperative to build a biblical-theological framework, rooted in thestory line of Scripture. That is, he saw thatit was crucial to think in a worldviewmanner, rooted and grounded in the Godwho is there.

In truth, what Schaeffer called us to androle modeled in his own life, was thedoing of theology. In the broadest sense,the task of theology is to apply all of Scrip-ture to the issues of life. It is to work fromwithin the categories, structures, andteaching of Scripture, following the storyline of Scripture, and apply it to the world.It is to live from within the worldview ofScripture and to set that biblical-theologi-cal framework over against all otherworldviews. In short, it is to learn afreshhow “to think God’s thoughts after him”and “to bring every thought captive to theobedience of Christ.”40 This was Schaef-

Page 15: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

18

fer’s strength and this is another cruciallesson that we need to learn from him.

In fact, I am convinced that it wasbecause he constantly thought at theworldview level that helps explain whyhe was so adamant that evangelicals mustnot compromise certain points of doctrine.It was because he realized that Christian-ity was a worldview and that its parts“hung together” as a whole, that he wasvery concerned when evangelical schol-ars would chip away at some of theseseemingly “insignificant” points. Thus,for example, he was very concerned thatAdam was viewed as a historic figure andthe Fall as a space-time event, and thatthe early chapters of Genesis were notde-historicized. Why? Because he rightlysaw that unless we took the Bible on itsown terms; unless we maintained thesecrucial starting points that were the build-ing blocks for the rest of the story, thenthe worldview of historic Christianitywould not only collapse, but, in the end,Christianity itself would become nothingmore than another “upper story” thingdivorced from rational grounding, truth,and the God who is really there.41 At stake,in other words, was not just one point ofdoctrine, but the entire worldview claim;indeed, the gospel.

If we are to learn from Schaeffer atthis point, our thinking, teaching, preach-ing, and living must be much moreworldview-ish. Our battle today is overentire worldview structures. Thus, in ourteaching and preaching we must workharder at showing people how the piecesof Scripture “hang together” as a coher-ent whole, and how those pieces lead toworldview formation. But even more: inour evangelism, in speaking to a culturethat increasingly operates with alienworldviews and knows little of Christian-

ity, we must learn afresh to communicatethe gospel within its own worldviewstructure, beginning with the God whois there.

The Centrality of the Doctrineof God

Francis Schaeffer was truly a God-centered man. This was not only true inhis personal devotion and life; it was alsotrue in terms of his thought.42 It is instruc-tive that the very titles of his books—e.g.,The God Who Is There; He Is There and He Is

Not Silent—illustrate the fact that forSchaeffer, all the answers of life, meaning,morality, significance, and values arerooted and grounded in the personal-infinite, Triune God of Scripture.

Interestingly, there is a logical progres-sion in these lessons; they are not randomor haphazard. What has happened towestern culture? For Schaeffer, modernman has turned away from the God ofScripture. In so doing, certain conse-quences have resulted from these alienworldviews that we see around us, livingin our postmodern culture. What, then, isthe solution to our problem? Where shallwe turn to overcome the dichotomies inour intellectual life, the alienation in ourpersonal lives, and the impersonalism ofour society? The Triune God of Scripture.For it is only in him, the personal-infiniteGod who is the creator, sustainer, andprovidential Lord, the God who speaks,that we can find the answers to the ques-tions of life. In him alone are intellectualanswers because he is the source andstandard of truth; but also in him aloneis forgiveness, healing, justification, andredemption. For Schaeffer, God is notmerely the transcendental necessity formeaning, truth, and values. He is also ourportion. He is the God who is there—who

Page 16: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

19

can be known, loved, and adored.It is at this point, that we must learn

from Schaeffer. First, we must learn afreshhow central the doctrine of God is to theChristian worldview. We must especiallylearn this living in a day of religiouspluralism in which the word “god” hasbasically become meaningless andcontentless. We must have courage tostand and proclaim only one God and noother. We must have courage even in theevangelical world in which current debateover the doctrine of God is raging, to saythat not all conceptions of God are equal.43

It is only the God of Scripture, representedby historic Christianity, who is there. Butsecondly we must learn afresh that ourdoctrine of God must not be merely theo-retical. This God must also be our portion.He must be the one who captures ourthinking and our lives. In our teaching,preaching, and living, the God of Scrip-ture must be our passion and delight.

The Necessity of Biblical Authorityand Inerrancy

Probably few evangelicals have spokenmore passionately about inerrancy, bib-lical authority, and the doctrine of inspi-ration than Francis Schaeffer. Not onlywas he instrumental in forming the Inter-national Council on Biblical Inerrancy,he also taught, preached, and wroteabout how much biblical authority was a“watershed” issue. He had no time forevangelicals who only gave lip service tobiblical authority while at the same timeredefined what inerrancy historicallymeant for the church, obfuscating it inhermeneutical issues, or undercutting thevery claims of Scripture regarding itself.Now the interesting question to ask is:Why? Why was Schaeffer so concernedabout biblical authority?

The answer should not surprise us. Hewas so concerned because the doctrine ofScripture was so basic to the Christianworldview and the God of Scripture. ForSchaeffer, it is the God of the Bible—thepersonal-infinite, Triune God—who is thetranscendental necessity for meaning, sig-nificance, values, and truth. We come toknow this God not only because he isthere, but because he has spoken to us—he is not silent. And because God is asScripture presents him to be—the creator,sustainer, and Lord of his universe—thereis no intellectual problem affirming thatGod is perfectly able to reveal himself tous and to guarantee that what the humanauthors of Scripture freely write is pre-cisely what he intended to have written.Furthermore, this seems to be the claimof Scripture regarding itself.44 So exegeti-cally, theologically, and philosophically,biblical authority makes sense. It is intel-lectually credible, part and parcel ofthe entire worldview structure. And it istheologically necessary if we are to havetruth and to justify theological doctrines.45

Without a high view of Scripture, wedeny what Scripture says about itself andundercut the foundation by which wemay do theology and answer the basicquestions of life.46

That is why Schaeffer grew increasinglyalarmed at evangelicals who were depart-ing from or undercutting a high view ofScripture. His last book, literally writtenon his death bed, sought to warn the evan-gelical church against compromising onbiblical authority for some of the reasonsjust stated. He writes,

Evangelicals today are facing awatershed concerning the nature ofbiblical inspiration and authority….Within evangelicalism there is agrowing number who are modify-ing their views on the inerrancy of

Page 17: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

20

the Bible so that the full authority ofScripture is completely undercut.But it is happening in very subtleways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views onbiblical authority often seem at firstglance not to be so very far fromwhat evangelicals, until just recently,have always believed. But also, likethe snow lying side-by-side on theridge, the new views when followedconsistently end up a thousandmiles apart.

What may seem like a minor dif-ference at first, in the end makes allthe difference in the world. It makesall the difference, as we mightexpect, in things pertaining to the-ology, doctrine and spiritual matters,but it also makes all the differencein things pertaining to the dailyChristian life and how we as Chris-tians are to relate to the worldaround us. In other words, compro-mising the full authority of Scriptureeventually affects what it means to be aChristian theologically and how we livein the full spectrum of human life.47

It should not surprise us that variousevangelicals have not accepted this either-or presentation of Schaeffer. For example,Scott Burson and Jerry Walls think that hehas overstated his case. They ask whetherinerrancy really is the watershed issue forevangelicals and they respond with anegative answer.48 They argue that Godwas less concerned with the exact word-ing of Scripture and more concerned withthe “essential reliability of his overallmessage.”49 They have problems with twopremises of Schaeffer’s argument: (1) Thatthe Bible contains exactly what Goddesires, down to the very words; (2) ThatGod can precisely control what humanauthors write without taking away theirfreedom, because these premises seem toimply an implicit determinism associatedwith a compatibilistic view of human free-dom.50 Lurking behind this criticism is animplicit adoption of a libertarian view ofhuman freedom which entails a more lim-

ited understanding of God’s sovereigncontrol over the world.51

What is important about this observa-tion is that Burson and Walls rightly notethat Schaeffer’s high view of Scripture andhis defense of inerrancy requires a certainconception of the sovereignty of God andhis relation to his creatures, particularlythe authors of Scripture. Schaeffer, as onewho affirmed a strong view of divinesovereignty and the rule and reign of Godin this world, would not be surprised.Arguing from a Reformational theology,he would have acknowledged that thedoctrine of inerrancy is intimately tied toour view of God. As we have noted abovein commenting on the God-centerednessof Schaeffer’s thought, the doctrine ofGod was the pivotal starting point in hisunderstanding and defense of Christian-ity. For him, not just any god would do.It was only the personal-infinite, (i.e., sov-ereign) Triune God of Scripture who aloneis the foundation for truth and knowledge,and who alone, if he so chooses, canreveal himself in such a way that is whollyreliable, true, and trustworthy.52 However,what would have disturbed Schaeffer isthe weakening of the infinite, or sovereign,nature of God that is now occurring insome quarters of evangelicalism.53 Hewould have been disturbed by this trendbecause he would have whole-heartedlyagreed with the astute observation of J. I.Packer that:

The customary apologetic for bibli-cal authority operates on too narrowa front. As we have seen, faith in theGod of the Reformation theology isthe necessary presupposition of faithin Scripture as “God’s Word writ-ten,” and without this faith solaScriptura as the God-taught principleof authority more or less loses itsmeaning … we must never lose sightof the fact that our doctrine of God

Page 18: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

21

is decisive for our concept of Scrip-ture, and that in our controversywith a great deal of modern theol-ogy it is here, rather than in relationto the phenomena of Scripture, thatthe decisive battle must be joined.54

No doubt, much more could be said andmust be said about Schaeffer’s expositionand defense of the doctrine of inerrancy.55

But suffice it to say that for him biblicalauthority was a watershed issue of gigan-tic proportions. It was an issue intimatelylinked to his overall defense of the Chris-tian worldview. He believed that, withoutit, the Christian worldview would beginto unravel, beginning with the doctrine ofGod.56 In this, I am convinced, he is right.We must learn afresh today that the doc-trine of inerrancy is no mere option forevangelicals. It is part and parcel of whatChristianity is and to tone it down is toundercut the whole.

Lessons to Learn from the Life ofFrancis Schaeffer

At the end of his life, Schaeffer wrotethe following words:

What really matters? What is it thatmatters so much in my life and inyour life that it sets priorities foreverything we do? Our Lord Jesuswas asked essentially this samequestion and his reply was: “‘Lovethe Lord your God with all yourheart and with all your soul andwith all your mind.’ This is the firstand greatest commandment. Andthe second is like it: ‘Love yourneighbor as yourself.’ All the Lawand the Prophets hang on these twocommandments.” (Matthew 22:37-40). Here is what really matters—tolove the Lord our God, to love hisSon, and to know him personally asour Savior. And if we love him, todo the things that please him; simul-taneously to show forth his charac-ter of love and holiness in our lives;to be faithful to his truth; to walk dayby day with the living Christ; to live

a life of prayer.And the other half of what really

matters is to love our neighbor asourselves. The two go together; theycannot be separated…. And if welove our neighbor as Christ wouldhave us love our neighbor, we willcertainly want to share the gospelwith our neighbor; and beyond thiswe will want to show forth the lawof God in all our relationships withour neighbor.

But it does not stop here. Evange-lism is primary, but it is not the endof our work and indeed cannot beseparated from the rest of the Chris-tian life. We must acknowledge andthen act upon the fact that if Christis our Savior, he is also our Lord inall of life. He is our Lord not just inreligious things and not just in cul-tural things such as the arts andmusic, but in our intellectual lives,and in business, and in our relationto society, and in the attitude towardthe moral breakdown of our cul-ture…. Making Christ Lord in ourlives means taking a stand in verydirect and practical ways against theworld spirit of our age as it rollsalong claiming to be autonomous,crushing all that we cherish in itspath.57

In this quote we glimpse something of thelife of Francis Schaeffer and lessons wemay learn from that life. No doubt it istrue that Schaeffer was not a perfect indi-vidual; no one is. Yet, in his life we see aperson of integrity; a man who attemptedto live and act upon what he believed andtaught. In particular, he sought to love theLord and his neighbor, and in so doing tobring his life constantly, in both thoughtand action, under the Lordship of JesusChrist. Let us look at each of these areasin turn.

Loving the Lord Your GodAs stated above, Schaeffer was a God-

centered man. This was not only true interms of his thought, but also his life.Whether you read his works or listen to

Page 19: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

22

his tapes, a deep devotion for the Lord isclearly evident. Here is an individual whodoes not merely talk about God, but onewho knows him deeply. Even the begin-ning of L’Abri was born in a spiritual cri-sis to know God in a deeper way. Schaefferrecounts in True Spirituality how he him-self faced a spiritual crisis in 1951-52, andout of that crisis the birth of L’Abri tookplace. He discovered during this timewhat it meant to rely upon the finishedwork of Christ in our present lives and inmoment-to-moment dependence uponthe Spirit of God in prayer. And this wasnot mere rhetoric for him. L’Abri itself wasrooted and grounded in prayer; a visibletestimony to the existence, power, andgrace of God.58

We also see in Schaeffer a man whosought to exhibit simultaneously theholiness of God and the love of God,albeit in an imperfect way. He was a manof courage and compassion, both in termsof his thought and life. He spoke muchabout the need for “loving confrontation”and he demonstrated it in his life. Forexample, Harold O. J. Brown recounts atleast three areas in which Schaeffer took astand, when it was not fashionable to doso, largely due to his desire to honor theLord with all his heart, soul, mind, andstrength.

First, there was his stand against thetheology of Karl Barth. As noted above,Schaeffer was converted and received histheological training in the 1930s. At thattime evangelical theology was almostnonexistent for a variety of reasons largelystemming from the fundamentalist-mod-ernist controversies of that era. However,after World War II, evangelicalism enjoyeda rebirth under such scholars as F. F. Bruceand Carl F. H. Henry, as well as under theevangelistic ministry of Billy Graham.

Brown recounts that Schaeffer could havebeen a part of this movement and attainedcelebrity status; however he detectedflaws and compromise that were seriousenough to undermine evangelicalism asa movement. What did he see? He saw thegrowing influence of neo-orthodoxy onevangelical theology. What was appealingabout Barth was that he too, like evan-gelicals, was criticizing many liberalassumptions held in the academic com-munity. As such, some evangelicals weredrawn to the orthodox elements in Barth’stheology, while they were slow to observethe negative points. However, whatSchaeffer noticed was not only that Barth’sinfluence in Europe was beginning todecrease, but also that Barth’s theology, ifadopted, would undermine evangelicaltheology.59

Where did Barth go wrong? Schaefferargued that Barth had an improper viewof biblical authority. He allowed for thetheoretical possibility of mistakes in Scrip-ture, thus undermining the foundationsfor evangelical theology. Barth’s critiqueagainst liberalism was helpful, but hisfoundations for the faith were shaky, andthis precisely is what Schaeffer pointedout. What Schaeffer saw, probably moreclearly than anyone else, was that Barth’stheology was not the one to adopt.60

Brown summarizes it this way:

There is no doubt that Barth wasantiliberal, and that he affirmed thecentral doctrines of the Christianfaith. However, his failure to assertBiblical infallibility and the historic-ity of the Gospel accounts meant thathis affirmations rested on his owncharismatic authority rather than onthat of Scripture. Because of his fail-ure to shore up the foundations ofBiblical authority which had beensapped by a generation of destruc-tive criticism, Barth was not able toestablish a second generation of

Page 20: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

23

Protestant theologians in the faiththat he himself honored; his great-est influence remains among evan-gelicals and other conservatives whoalready know why they believe.There is no doubt that Barth’saffirmations are encouraging, buthis foundations are inadequate, andit would be dangerous to take himas a theological guide. It is remark-able that Schaeffer recognized thisthree decades ago while some evan-gelical leaders today are “discover-ing” Barth as the answer to moderndisbelief.61

Second, and probably even more dis-turbing to some evangelicals than hisstand against Barth, was Schaeffer’s fail-ure to embrace wholeheartedly the evan-gelistic methods of Billy Graham. It wasnot that Schaeffer was against evangelism,nor was it due to Graham’s lack of com-mitment to biblical authority. Rather, itwas a twofold concern. First, Schaefferwas alarmed that Graham too quicklyworked with and did not sufficientlydistinguish between those who held tohistoric Christianity versus liberalism orRoman Catholic theology.62 Second, hewas concerned that Graham’s evangelismdid not touch the whole person and assuch, it tended to appeal solely to anemotional decision—an “upper story”experience—that will, in the end, onlyproduce pseudo-converts.63 As Brownnotes, Schaeffer’s criticism of Graham’sapproach was not offered to a wide pub-lic, but it soon became known. He wascriticized by some leaders in the evangeli-cal movement, such as Carl Henry andHarold Lindsell, and written off by oth-ers as being too separatistic.64 Yet,Schaeffer realized something that toomany failed to see. What good is “success”in evangelism if it does not produce trueconverts? Evangelism, especially in thisera, given the massive shifts that have

taken place in society, must call for “solidfoundations as well as good feelings.”65 AsBrown astutely observes, evangelicalismas a movement only gained a sense ofstrength and stability in those early yearsbecause “many of Graham’s converts laterwent through the school of Schaeffer’s dis-ciplined thinking.”66

Third, there was his courageous standfor the rights of the unborn. It is impor-tant to realize that Schaeffer ’s socialactivism was not independent of hisdefense of truth and the gospel. As alreadystated above, the Roe v. Wade decision ofthe U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 was apowder keg for Schaeffer. It was alarm-ing evidence that the ideas of the Enlight-enment were beginning to have practicalconsequences in how human beingsviewed each other. Schaeffer had beenpredicting for quite some time that, withthe loss of a Christian view of reality inthe west, one of the massive implicationswould be the loss of respect for humanlife. And that is precisely what Roe v. Wade

symbolized for Schaeffer. And so when he,along with precious few others, took thisissue to the streets, he did so out of aprofound sense of love for God and hisWord, as well as love for his neighbor.Truth demanded action.

But initially not all evangelicals, espe-cially those in leadership positions, appre-ciated Schaeffer’s stand. As Brown notes,with the publication of A Christian Mani-

festo, he for the first time was branded apolitical conservative, which broughtattacks from a growing number of politi-cally liberal evangelicals.67 Brown states:

Schaeffer’s increasingly outspokencommitment to specific conservativecauses in the last two years of his lifetroubled some evangelicals who dis-agreed with him, because they rec-ognized his influence among the

Page 21: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

24

general Christian public. In addi-tion, it embarrassed others, whogenerally agreed with him, becausethey wished to avoid controversyand not to endanger their ownacceptance among the general pub-lic. Consequently Schaeffer foundhimself once again, at the end of hislife, in the position he had occupiedin the 1960s, before his name becamea household word—a voice cryingin the wilderness.68

Here again, we may learn from Schaef-fer. Even though it was costly to him, hestood for the cause of truth and life. Hispractical, social action was not divorcedfrom his beliefs and his love for the Lord;instead, it flowed from them. In a daywhen it is so easy to compromise in themidst of pressure, to bend when thegoing gets tough, Schaeffer is a contem-porary role model, like those ancients inthe past, who was willing to love Godwith his whole self, to exhibit his charac-ter in the toughness of life, and to befaithful to God’s truth.

Loving Your Neighbor as YourselfAs Schaeffer stated in the quote above,

the love of God and the love of neighborare intimately intertwined and “if we loveour neighbor as Christ would have us loveour neighbor, we will certainly want toshare the gospel with our neighbor; andbeyond this we will want to show forththe law of God in all our relationships withour neighbor.”69 Of course, no person liv-ing this side of the consummation willever achieve this ideal, however in Francis(and Edith) Schaeffer we see a person whoat least sought to model for us somethingof how it should be done. We see thisespecially in three areas.

First, Schaeffer demonstrates his lovefor his neighbor in attempting to give hon-est answers to honest questions. In hisbooklet, Two Contents, Two Realities,

Schaeffer contends that there are fourthings that are absolutely necessary ifChristians are going to meet the chal-lenges of our day: (1) Sound doctrine; (2)Honest answers to honest questions; (3)True spirituality; and (4) The beauty ofhuman relationships. In his discussion of(1) and (2) he stresses the need to makeno compromises over sound doctrine,while simultaneously spending time withpeople and attempting to answer theirquestions. He deplores the attitude ofsome in the church who give the impres-sion that we are not to ask any questions,just believe. This, he says, is alwayswrong. It is wrong because it does notview human beings as whole people whoneed both intellectual and spiritual an-swers.70 It is also wrong, especially in anage that does not believe in truth, to saythat we have the truth and then not takethe time to answer real and difficult ques-tions. But, of course, this not only takes alot of time and effort, it also takes com-passion to meet people where they are.Answering questions is hard work. Schaef-fer states it this way:

Christianity demands that we haveenough compassion to learn thequestions of our generation. Thetrouble with too many of us is thatwe want to be able to answer thesequestions instantly, as though wecould take a funnel, put it in one earand pour in the facts, and then goout and regurgitate them and winall the discussions. It cannot be.Answering questions is hard work.Can you answer all the questions?No, but you must try. Begin to listenwith compassion. Ask what thisman’s questions really are and try toanswer. And if you don’t know theanswer, try to go someplace or readand study to find the answer.

Not everybody is called to answerthe questions of the intellectual, butwhen you go down to the shipyardworker you have a similar task…. I

Page 22: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

25

tell you they have the same ques-tions as the university man. Theyjust do not articulate them the sameway.

Answers are not salvation…. Andthere must be the work of the HolySpirit. Nonetheless, what I am talk-ing about is our responsibility tohave enough compassion to prayand do the hard work which is nec-essary to answer the honest ques-tions.71

These were not just empty words toSchaeffer; they reflected his life.72 Forcountless numbers who came to L’Abri,Schaeffer sought to put into practice whathe taught. Constantly one of the chargesI hear from students at seminary is thatprofessors, and even pastors, have no timefor them. They have honest questions thatrequire time and attention, but often weare too busy to help. But, as Schaefferreminded us, we are called to love ourneighbor. For Christian leaders, pastors,and teachers, certainly one way that thismust show itself is in time spent, careshown, and honest answers given to realpeople who, in a postmodern age, deservenothing less.

A second way that the Schaeffersdemonstrated their love for others wasthrough hospitality. At L’Abri they openedup their home to individuals, which wascertainly not an easy thing to do. AsSchaeffer later reflected on this he statedthat “in about the first three years ofL’Abri all our wedding presents werewiped out. Our sheets were torn. Holeswere burned in our rugs. Indeed, once awhole curtain almost burned up fromsomebody smoking in our living room….Drugs came to our place. People vomitedin our rooms.”73 Now this is not to saythat everyone must do what the Schaeffersdid. However, in their life we see twoindividuals who took seriously the com-mand to love both God and neighbor.

Story after story at L’Abri is centered inhow this visible love was so instrumentalin bringing people to Christ.74 Evangelismmust not be divorced from how we treatthe whole person, in our words and in ouractions.

Third, Schaeffer’s life sought to exhibita wonderful balance between truth andlove. He stood fast for the gospel, but inso doing he sought to love and under-stand in person-to-person relationshipsthe people to whom he was ministering.Brown, comparing Francis Schaeffer toAthanasius (another role model from thepast who knew what it was to stand forthe truth), relates how Schaeffer sought toachieve the balance between truth andlove. He states:

Like Athanasius, Schaeffer tookstands—especially in his last years—which some would call intemperateand inflexible. We do not reallyknow how Athanasius dealt withpeople on a personal level; it ispossible that he was as severe withindividuals as he was with theirtheology. But in Schaeffer’s case, weknow that the rigor of his convic-tions was always tempered withlove and understanding in person-to-person relationships as well as inpublic debate. He invariably treatedthose with whom he deeply dis-agreed with consideration and love.Francis Schaeffer not only held theline for Biblical orthodoxy in his gen-eration as Athanasius had done.What is perhaps even more impor-tant, Schaeffer showed the next gen-eration not merely that they willneed to take stands, but where to takethem and how to do so, in Paul’swords, “speaking the truth in love”(Ephesians 4:15). He has shown usthat standing “contra mundum” isan essential part of being “proChristo.”75

Here is another lesson that we mustlearn, especially for those of us who serveas leaders in the church. Every generation

Page 23: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

26

must stand for the truth, but we must doso in love. Today, we hear much aboutlove at the expense of taking hard anduncompromising stands for truth. In a daythat desperately needs to hear the truth,we cannot waver at this point. However,we must not go to the other extremeeither; both truth and love are necessary.And Francis Schaeffer is a helpful rolemodel at this point. A man of conviction,rooted and grounded in God’s Word; aman who knew firsthand what “lovingconfrontation” was all about; a man whosought to love the Lord his God and hisneighbor as himself, and to exhibit, inthought and action, the Lordship of JesusChrist in all of life. May we learn likewise.

In the end, Francis Schaeffer was afallen, imperfect man, saved by the graceof God. He, like us all, made many mis-takes. But he was a unique individual,gifted by God for his generation. Heoften said that God did not have to usesomeone with extraordinary gifts, insteadGod can use a dead stick of wood if hewants as he did in the hand of Moses. Ina very memorable sermon he stated itthis way:

Though we are limited and weak intalent, physical energy, and psycho-logical strength, we are not less thana stick of wood. But as the rod ofMoses had to become the rod ofGod, so that which is me mustbecome the me of God. Then I canbecome useful in God’s hands. TheScripture emphasizes that much cancome from little if the little is trulyconsecrated to God. There are nolittle people and no big people in thetrue spiritual sense, but only conse-crated and unconsecrated people.The problem for each of us is apply-ing the truth to ourselves.... Thosewho think of themselves as littlepeople in little places, if committedto Christ and living under His Lord-ship in the whole of life, may, byGod’s grace, change the flow of our

generation. And as we get on a bitin our lives, knowing how weak weare, if we look back and see we havebeen somewhat used of God, thenwe should be the rod “surprised byjoy.”76

From the thought and life of FrancisSchaeffer there is much to ponder andlearn. It does not honor him simply toparrot back everything he has said; hewould not have wanted this. Instead,what we are to learn from him is how tominister more effectively in our time as hedid in his—with mind and heart firmlyrooted and grounded in Scripture; pas-sionate for the gospel; willing to tackle theissues of our day in faithfulness to ourgreat God. After all, no higher tributecould be given to a man who sought inhis thought and life, above all, to liveunder the Lordship of Jesus Christ, for theglory of God alone.

ENDNOTES11Unless otherwise noted, all references to

the writings of Francis Schaeffer will betaken from The Complete Works of Francis

A. Schaeffer, 5 vols., 2d ed. (Wheaton:Crossway, 1985).

22Michael S. Hamilton, “The Dissatisfac-tion of Francis Schaeffer,” Christianity To-

day, 3 March 1997, 22.33Harold O. J. Brown, “Standing Against

the World,” in Francis Schaeffer: Portraits

of the Man and His Work, ed. Lane T. Den-nis (Westchester: Crossway, 1986) 15-16.

44These three areas of Schaeffer’s impactare taken from Brown, 19-25.

55For more on the personal influence ofFrancis Schaeffer in the lives of variousindividuals see the chapters in Part 2 ofFrancis Schaeffer: Portraits, 129-205. Alsoin this regard see some of the personalcorrespondence between Schaeffer andvarious people on a variety of issues in

Page 24: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

27

Lane T. Dennis, ed., Letters of Francis

A. Schaeffer (Westchester: Crossway,1985).

66Francis Schaeffer’s last work, The

Great Evangelical Disaster (West-chester: Crossway, 1984) was pub-lished just months before he died ofcancer. In this work he sought towarn and plead with the evangeli-cal community not to compromisebiblical authority and the exclusiv-ity of the gospel. He even namedvarious names of those whom hebelieved had compromised at thesepoints, while at the same time call-ing for a new generation of Chris-tians to take a stand as “radicalsfor truth” in our time. The Great

Evangelical Disaster was re-pub-lished in The Complete Works of

Francis Schaeffer, 4:301-411.77“Neo-orthodoxy” is a theological

movement beginning in the early1920s and continuing to this day,even though its primary influencein the larger theological world wasfrom the 1920s to the 1970s. It isassociated with a number of theo-logians such as Rudolf Bultmann,Emil Brunner, Reinhold Niebuhr,and Paul Tillich, but it is mostfamously associated with the theol-ogy of Swiss theologian Karl Barth.For more on neo-orthodoxy see,David F. Ford, ed., The Modern Theo-

logians, 2d ed. (Oxford: Blackwell,1997) 21-102; C. A. Baxter, “Neo-Orthodoxy,” in New Dictionary of

Theology, ed. Sinclair Ferguson et al.(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,1988) 456-457.

88On this subject especially see How

Should We Then Live?; Whatever Hap-

pened to the Human Race?; and A

Christian Manifesto in The Complete

Works, vol. 5.99Brown, 23.10Lane T. Dennis, “Schaeffer and His

Critics,” in Francis A. Schaeffer: Por-

traits, 102. The reviews that Dennismentions are those of Ronald A.Wells, “Francis Schaeffer ’s Jer-emiad: A Review Article,” The

Reformed Journal, May 1982, 16-20,and Stephen Board, “The Rise ofFrancis Schaeffer,” Eternity, June1977, 41.

11Dennis, “Schaeffer and His Critics,”227, n. 5.

12Ibid., 102-26. Dennis’ excellent dis-cussion of this whole issue is veryhelpful as he addresses the wholeissue of whether Schaeffer was a“scholar” and whether this is thereal reason for the negative reactionto his thought.

13See Hamilton, 30.14It is well known that evangelicalism

is a divided movement on a num-ber of important doctrinal issues.For a discussion of some of thesedoctrinal divisions from a variety ofviewpoints see the following:“Evangelical Megashift,” Christian-

ity Today, 19 February 1990, 12-17;Kenneth S. Kantzer and Carl F. H.Henry, eds., Evangelical Affirmations

(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990);Millard Erickson, The Evangelical

Left (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997);Roger Olson, “The Future of Evan-gelical Theology,” Christianity Today,9 February 1998, 40-42; Elmer M.Colyer, ed., Evangelical Theology in

Transition (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1999); Stanley Grenz,Renewing the Center (Grand Rapids:Baker, 2000); John D. Woodbridge et

al., This We Believe (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 2000).

15For further resources that outlinethe life of Francis Schaeffer in muchmore detail, see David Porter,“Francis Schaeffer,” in Great Leaders

of the Christian Church, ed. John D.Woodbridge (Chicago: MoodyPress, 1988) 362-366; Colin Duriez,“Francis Schaeffer” in Handbook of

Evangelical Theologians, ed. Walter A.Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993)245-259; and Dennis, ed., Francis A.

Schaeffer: Portraits, 207-211. Also seethe life story of the Schaeffers as toldby Edith Schaeffer in L’Abri, 2d ed.(Wheaton: Crossway, 1992) and The

Tapestry (Waco: Word, 1981).16For more information on the minis-

try of L’Abri Fellowship today, seewww.labri.org.

17For a complete list of books, tapes,and videos by Francis and EdithSchaeffer see www.labri.org.

18This theme runs throughout Schaef-fer’s books, but especially see The

God Who Is There; Escape from Rea-

son; He Is There and He Is Not Silent;How Should We Then Live?; andWhatever Happened to the Human

Race? in The Complete Works, vols. 1and 5.

19There has been a lot of debate overthe accuracy of Schaeffer’s analysisof western thought, art, music, andculture. Even though it is no doubttrue that at some points he haspainted a broad and over-general-ized picture, it has also beenacknowledged that the “big pic-ture” he sketched has been provento be basically correct. On more ofthis see the essays by Ronald Nash,“The Life of the Mind and the Way

Page 25: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

28

of Life,” and Lane Dennis, “Schaef-fer and His Critics,” in Francis A.

Schaeffer: Portraits, 53-69 and 101-126 respectively. Also see some ofthe helpful comments by Duriez,252-259.

20Cited in The God Who Is There, 1:11.21The God Who Is There, 1:5-6.22In Schaeffer’s writings, he often dis-

tinguished between “modern sci-ence and philosophy” and “modernmodern science and philosophy.” Inthis latter expression, he anticipateswhat is now called “postmod-ernism.” On this especially seeEscape from Reason, 1:225-236.

23For more on postmodernism, bothpopular and more sophisticated, seethe following works: Gene E. Veith,Jr., Postmodern Times (Wheaton:Crossway, 1994); David Dockery,ed., The Challenge of Postmodernism

(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995); StanleyJ. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996);D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God

(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996);Kevin Vanhoozer, Is There a Mean-

ing in This Text? (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1998); and MillardErickson, Truth or Consequences: The

Promise and Perils of Postmodernism

(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,2001) and The Postmodern World

(Wheaton: Crossway, 2002).24Carson, 19.25Schaeffer’s use of the expression

“true truth” illustrates the fact thathe was concerned that the term“truth” no longer meant what itused to mean. So, in order to com-municate effectively to a generationthat does not believe in truth, hecoined this expression to communi-

cate an objective, universal, reality-corresponding view of truth.

26For some of these same concerns seeCarson, 13-54; 491-514.

27For this analysis especially seeEscape from Reason, 1:205-270.

28The term “rationalism” can meanmany things to many people. Tosome it is a term that refers to aschool of epistemology known as“Continental Rationalism” in con-trast to other schools such as “Brit-ish Empiricism” or Immanuel Kant’s“Transcendental Idealism.” To oth-ers, it simply means a person whooveremphasizes the use of reason.However, for Schaeffer he is usingthe term to refer to “any philosophyor system of thought that beginswith man alone, in order to try tofind a unified meaning to life” (The

God Who Is There, 1:200). In otherwords, “rationalism” refers to amindset, an approach to philosophythat views human beings as thefinal authority in matters of truthand reality, which he then sets overagainst Christianity that views Godand his Word as the final authorityfor matters of truth and life.

29Schaeffer ’s analysis of westernthought in terms of a progressivedevelopment of a number of dialec-tical tensions is very similar to thatof Herman Dooyeweerd, A Critique

of Theoretical Thought, 4 vols. (Phil-a d e l p h i a : P re s b y t e r i a n a n dReformed, 1953-58) and highlyindebted to his former professor,Cornelius Van Til, found in suchworks as: A Christian Theory of

Knowledge (Phillipsburg: Presbyte-rian and Reformed, 1969); and A

Survey of Christian Epistemology

(Philadelphia: Presbyterian andReformed, 1969).

30See The God Who Is There, 1:13-90. ForSchaeffer, this analysis was at theheart of his apologetics. Time andtime again he sought to help peoplebecome more epistemologicallyself-conscious about the implica-tions of their presuppositions,attempting to demonstrate that allworldviews, other than Christianity,are ultimately internally inconsis-tent and thus nigh impossible to liveout, practically speaking. For moreon the nature and methodology ofSchaeffer’s apologetics see The God

Who Is There, 1:129-181.31This theme is found throughout

Schaeffer’s writings as well as in histaped lectures. See especially histaped lecture entitled, “Basic Prob-lems We Face” Part 1 and 2. All ofSchaeffer’s tapes and those of L’AbriFellowship may be purchasedthrough Sound Word Associates,P.O. Box 2036, Chesterton, IN 46304or at www.soundword.com.

32There has been a lot of discussionover whether Schaeffer interpretedand understood Barth correctly. Nodoubt, Barth is a lot more nuancedthan Schaeffer mentioned in hisbooks, and much more could andneeds to be said about Barth’s the-ology. However, Schaeffer’s basicanalysis, I would contend, is correct,especially at the points he was em-phasizing. For a more in-depthtreatment of Barth’s theology, fol-lowing a similar assessment, seeCornelius Van Til, Christianity and

Barthianism (Nutley: Presbyterianand Reformed, 1977).

33See the taped lectures of Schaeffer

Page 26: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

29

entitled, “Basic Problems We Face”’;“Exclusive Christ in an InclusiveAge”; “Relativism in the 20th Cen-tury”; and “Vatican Council II.” Inthe “Vatican II” lectures, Schaefferperceptively analyzes the shifts thatwere occurring in Roman Catholictheology towards a more “inclu-sive” understanding of salvation atthe beginning of Vatican Council IIin 1962.

34The term “worldview” today is nowcommon, thanks to the influence ofpeople like Francis Schaeffer. For apopular work that helps us viewideas in terms of worldview struc-tures see James Sire, The Universe

Next Door, 3d ed. (Downers Grove:InterVarsity Press, 1997).

35In apologetics, the word “presuppo-sition” is not always used in thesame way. This is important toremember and sadly it is too oftenforgotten in debates over method-ological differences between vari-ous approaches to apologeticswithin evangelical apologetics.Schaeffer, for example, used theterm to refer to “a belief or theorywhich is accepted before the nextstep in logic is developed” (The God

Who Is There, 1:201). In this sense,“presuppositions” serve as hypoth-eses that need to be independentlyverified by such things as logic,historical evidence, pragmatic fit,etc. Gordon Clark in Three Types of

Religious Philosophy (Nutley: CraigPress, 1973) 121-123, used the termto refer to “axioms” of a person’s sys-tem of thought, which are unprov-able because they are dogmaticallyposited as a first principle for whichthere is nothing more basic by

which to demonstrate it. CorneliusVan Til, on the other hand, used theterm to refer to the ultimate crite-rions of one’s world-view that arenot beyond rational proof, i.e., theyare transcendentals that must beargued for and defended. As Van Tilstates, “A truly transcendental argu-ment takes any fact of experiencewhich it wishes to investigate, andtries to determine what the presup-

position of such a fact must be, inorder to make it what it is” (Survey

of Christian Epistemology, 10; cf. 201).For a helpful discussion on howthe term presupposition is used inChristian apologetics see Greg L.Bahnsen, Van Til ’s Apologetic

(Phillipsburg: Presbyterian andReformed, 1998) 461-697.

36The God Who Is There, 1:7.37Escape from Reason, 1:211.38Schaeffer spoke of this in terms of

“pre-evangelism.” Christian apolo-getics, he argued, had two pur-poses: (1) to defend the gospel; and(2) to communicate the gospel in away that any given generation canunderstand. In using the term “pre-evangelism” he was referring to (2).Schaeffer was concerned that in ourpresentation of the gospel, espe-cially living in an increasingly bib-lically illiterate and post-Christianculture, that people had knowledgeof the gospel before they had faith,hence the need for pre-evangelism.As he stated, “the invitation to act[that is, believe in Christ] comesonly after an adequate base ofknowledge has been given….Knowledge precedes faith. This iscrucial in understanding the Bible.To say (as a Christian should) that only

that faith which believes God on the

basis of knowledge is true faith, is to say

something which causes an explosion

in the twentieth-century world” (The

God Who Is There, 1:153-154).39For an example of this see The God

Who Is There, 1:93-160; Two Contents

and Two Realities, 3:407-422, andvarious tapes where he discussesthis such as: “Basic Problems WeFace” and “Before the Beginning.”

40The expression “to think God’sthoughts after him” was a strongemphasis in the thought of Cor-nelius Van Til, Schaeffer’s apolo-getics teacher at WestminsterTheological Seminary. For a helpfuldiscussion of this phrase in Van Tilwith application to Schaeffer ’sthought as well, see Bahnsen, 220-260.

41This argument is especially devel-oped in Genesis in Space and Time,2:1-114 and The Great Evangelical

Disaster, 4:301-411.42For the centrality of the doctrine of

God in the life of Schaeffer see suchworks as: True Spirituality, 3:193-378;Two Contents, Two Realities, 3:407-422; and The Great Evangelical Disas-

ter, 4:301-411.43One cannot help think of the raging

debate within evangelical theologyover open theism and the attemptby open theists to redefine andrevise the doctrine of God. On thissee the various books by open the-ists such as: Clark Pinnock, et al., The

Openness of God (Downers Grove:InterVarsity Press, 1994); John Sand-ers, The God Who Risks (DownersGrove: InterVarsity Press, 1998); andGregory A. Boyd, God of the Possible

(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000). In

Page 27: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

30

terms of response and able critiquesee Bruce A. Ware, God’s Lesser Glory

(Wheaton: Crossway, 2000); andJohn M. Frame, No Other God

(Phillipsburg: Presbyterian andReformed, 2001).

44On what Scripture claims for itselfsee Wayne Grudem, “Scripture’sSelf-Attestation and the Problem ofFormulating a Doctrine of Scrip-ture,” in Scripture and Truth, ed.D. A. Carson and John D. Wood-bridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1983) 19-59; John Frame, “Scrip-ture Speaks for Itself” in God’s Iner-

rant Word, ed. John W. Montgomery(Minneapolis: Bethany, 1974) 178-200; Sinclair Ferguson, “How Doesthe Bible Look at Itself?” in Inerrancy

and Hermeneutic, ed. Harvie Conn(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988) 47-66.

45Schaeffer’s argument at this pointis for the epistemological necessityof inerrancy, i.e., without an iner-rant text there is no way to justifytheological doctrines. What doesSchaeffer mean by this? Schaeffer’sargument was not that if the Bible iswrong on one point, it cannot betrusted anywhere. Obviously thatargument is false. Just because theBible might be wrong at one pointdoes not mean that it is not reliablein much of what it teaches at otherpoints where it can be confirmed.Rather, what he did mean is that ifScripture is not inerrant in every-thing that it affirms, then how dowe know any theological truthasserted in Scripture? A theologicaltruth which is asserted in Scripturemight be believed, it might even betrue, but how will it be known if theScripture contains errors in it? In the

end, Scripture will not be able toserve as our final authority unlessit is trustworthy and reliable in allthat it affirms.

46See The Great Evangelical Disaster,4:329-330.

47Ibid., 328-329.48See Scott R. Burson and Jerry L.

Walls, C. S. Lewis and Francis Schaef-

fer (Downers Grove: InterVarsityPress, 1998) 114.

49Ibid., 135-136.50Ibid., 135.51There has been a lot of discussion

of late as to the entailments of a lib-ertarian view of human freedom forone’s conception of divine sover-eignty, and thus the God-Scripturerelationship. David Basinger andRandall Basinger in “Inerrancy, Dic-tation, and the Free Will Defense,”Evangelical Quarterly 55 (1983) 177-180, spawned the discussion byarguing that one could not simulta-neously hold to libertarianism andinerrancy, unless one wanted toappeal to a dictation theory ofinspiration. Burson and Walls referto the Basingers’ argument posi-tively and then try to place Schaefferin the camp of libertarianism, thusarguing an inconsistency in Schaef-fer’s thought. In terms of the issueof whether Schaeffer was a libertar-ian, this is very difficult to assess.Schaeffer was not working with aprecise definition of human free-dom, especially as we have it in thephilosophical and theological litera-ture today. Rather, Schaeffer’s con-cern was to emphasize the freedomand responsibility of human beings,in contrast to the determinism ofpeople like B. F. Skinner, while at the

same time maintaining a strongsense of God’s sovereign rule andreign over the world. How libertar-ians have taken their argumenttoday, and especially how they haveapplied it to the doctrine of Scrip-ture (cf. Basingers’ argument), I amconvinced Schaeffer would haverejected outright. For a more in-depth discussion of the divinesovereignty-human freedom rela-tionship as applied to Scripture seemy articles, “The Importance of theNature of Divine Sovereignty forOur View of Scripture,” The South-

ern Baptist Journal of Theology 4.2(2000) 76-90, and “Divine Sover-eignty-Omniscience, Inerrancy, andOpen Theism: An Evaluation” Jour-

nal of the Evangelical Theological

Society (forthcoming, June 2002).52See He Is There and He Is Not Silent,

1:347.53See note 51.54J. I. Packer, “‘Sola Scriptura’ in His-

tory and Today,” in God’s Inerrant

Word, 60.55For some current works that defend

a high view of Scripture see, forexample, D. A. Carson and JohnWoodbridge, eds., Scripture and

Truth and Hermeneutics, Authority,

and Canon (Grand Rapids: Zonder-van, 1986); Norman Geisler, ed.,Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zonder-van, 1980); J. M. Boice, ed., The Foun-

dation of Biblical Authority (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1978); HarvieM. Conn, ed., Inerrancy and Herme-

neutic; Gordon Lewis and BruceDemarest, eds., Challenges to Iner-

rancy (Chicago: Moody, 1984); EarlRadmacher and Robert Preus, eds.,Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible

Page 28: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

31

(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984);Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and

Authority, 6 vols. (Waco: Word, 1976-83).

56On this point, see Schaeffer’s dis-cussion in The Great Evangelical

Disaster, 4:329-344.57Ibid., 4:321-322.58For the story behind L’Abri and how

it was birthed and maintained inprayer see Edith Schaeffer, L’Abri.

59This is not to say that some evan-gelicals did not criticize Barth’stheology. But Schaeffer, along withVan Til, were very concerned thatevangelical theology distinguishitself from Barth, even though Barthspoke many excellent points againstliberalism. Both Van Til and Schaef-fer were concerned about the wholepackage of Barth’s thought, whichthey were convinced would under-mine historic Christianity. On VanTil’s strong reaction to Barth seeChristianity and Barthianism (Nutley:Presbyterian and Reformed, 1977).Also see John Frame’s incisive sum-mary of Van Til’s problem andrejection of Barth’s theology, paral-lel to Schaeffer’s reaction as well, inCornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His

Thought (Phillipsburg: Presbyterianand Reformed, 1995) 353-369.

60This is not to say that Schaeffer wasthe only one to criticize Barth at thispoint. I have already made mentionof Van Til as another strong critic,and there were others as well.

61Brown, 20-21.62See Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism

Divided (Carlisle: Banner of TruthTrust, 2000) 50 n. 5; 76-77. Also seewhere Schaeffer comments on thefear he sees within evangelicalism

of cooperating in the area of evan-gelism with those who are not evan-gelical in their theology in The

Church at the End of the Twentieth

Century, 4:30-49; The Great Evangeli-

cal Disaster, 4:343; and Letters of

Francis Schaeffer, 72.63See Brown, 21-22. Much of Schaef-

fer’s criticism of Graham at thispoint is not directly written down.We know of it from those who knewSchaeffer personally as well as hintsof it in Schaeffer’s writings. On thispoint see Two Contents; Two Realities,3:407-422 and The Great Evangelical

Disaster, 4:343.64See Brown, 21-22.65Ibid., 21. Schaeffer states, “What is

the use of evangelicalism seemingto get larger and larger if sufficientnumbers of those under the nameevangelical no longer hold to thatwhich makes evangelicalism evan-gelical? If this continues, we are notfaithful to what the Bible claims foritself, and we are not faithful towhat Jesus Christ claims for theScriptures. But also—let us not everforget—if this continues, we andour children will not be ready fordifficult days ahead” (The Great

Evangelical Disaster, 4:343).66Ibid., 21-22.67Ibid., 24.68Ibid., 25.69The Great Evangelical Disaster, 4:322.70Schaeffer emphasized strongly

that evangelism must deal withthe whole person—the mind, will,emotions, heart, and soul. Whenasked on one occasion how heviewed himself, whether as a theo-logian, philosopher, or apologist, heresponded that he was an evange-

list. But he did not view his evan-gelism as divorced from the greatintellectual and cultural issues of lifebecause human beings are wholebeings. He states: “People often say,‘What are you?’ and I sometimeshave said, ‘Well basically I am anevangelist.’ But sometimes I do notthink that people have understoodthat does not mean that I think ofan evan-gelist in contrast to dealingwith philosophic, intellectual, orcultural questions with care. I amnot a professional, academic phi-losopher—that is not my calling,and I am glad that I have the call-ing that I have, and I am equallyglad some other people have theother calling. But when I say that Iam an evangelist, it is not that I amthinking that my philosophy, etc. isnot valid—I think it is.... But what Iam saying is that all the cultural,intellectual or philosophic materialis not to be separated from leadingpeople to Christ. I think my talkingabout metaphysics, morals, andepistemology to certain individualsis a part of my evangelism just asmuch as when I get to the momentto show them that they are morallyguilty and to tell them that Christdied for them on the cross. I do notsee or feel a dichotomy: this is myphilosophy and that is my evange-lism. The whole thing is evangelismto the people who are caught in thesecond lostness we spoke of—thesecond lostness being that they donot have answers to the questionsof meaning, purpose, and so on....To me there is a unity of all reality,and we can either say that everyfield of study is a part of evange-

Page 29: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984): Lessons from His Thought ... · more than Francis Schaeffer. For this reason alone, we need to take him seri-ously. Michael Hamilton, in commenting

32

lism… or we can say that there isno true evangelism that does nottouch 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.