“Is Francis Schaeffer a rationalist?” is a question that should only interest people who already know him. But, even though I don’t really know the man or his work, I found a defence of his apologetics helpful in thinking more precisely and more lovingly. If only all of us were as passionate for God, for people and for the truth.

Hi, my name is Terence, and I’m your host for Reading and Readers, a podcast where I review Christian books for you. Today I review Truth with Love: The Apologetics of Francis Schaeffer by Bryan A. Follis. 208 pages, published by Crossway in September 2006. Available on Amazon Kindle for USD 13.29 and in Logos for the same price.

A Defence of Francis Schaeffer’s Apologetics

Truth with Love is an assessment and defence of Francis Schaeffer’s Apologetics. The author, Bryan Follis, writes in the preface that he has never met Schaeffer. Francis Schaeffer was born on January 30, 1912 and died on May 15, 1984, and this book was published in 2006. Despite not knowing Schaeffer personally, Follis comes across as one who owes a debt of love to the man and is dedicated to defending the man and his legacy.

The book consists of an introduction, four chapters, and a conclusion.

In the introduction, we get a brief background of the world Schaeffer “lived and worked in”. It was a time when people were more passionate about the veracity or truthfulness of ideas. In those days, if you said, “Christianity is true”, then people would want to know how you knew and how you could prove it. Today, if you said, “Christianity is true”, people say, “That is your truth. That is not my truth.” Schaeffer actually knew this was coming. More on that later.

The book is a defence of Schaeffer’s apologetics. Why a defence? Because people accuse Schaeffer of being a rationalist. His approach is based on rationalism, and rationalism is anti-spiritual, thus anti-biblical. Follis says, “You got him wrong, and I am going to prove it.”

The first chapter is titled “Calvin and the Reformed Tradition”. It seems that if you are going to prove someone is a good Reformed Christian, the best way is to show that John Calvin would have approved of him. So we have an analysis of John Calvin leading towards a short section of historical theology titled, “The Role of Reason”, where Follis introduces the readers to the ideas of B.B. Warfield, Abraham Kuyper and Cornelius Van Til. This sets the stage for tackling Schaeffer’s apologetics.

In the second chapter, titled Arguments and Approach, Follis explains Schaeffer’s methods. Schaeffer is not a rationalist. Rationalists believe that you can come to God by the power of reasoning. Schaeffer does not believe that. He believes only the Holy Spirit can draw a person to saving knowledge of God. But we still have our God-given ability to reason. People come to him because he promises to give honest answers to honest questions. Schaeffer, through the power of reasoning, shows them the inconsistencies of their worldviews. He not only shows them the coherence of the Christian worldview, but he also shows the correspondence to reality. We all live in one reality, God’s creation, and Schaeffer’s apologetics through the L’Abri community show them that God truly exists.

In the third chapter, Follis throws out the charge of rationalism by presenting Schaeffer’s writings on spirituality and Schaeffer’s life lived out for all to see in the L’Abri community. Follis, in effect, says, “How can you say Schaeffer is a rationalist when you consider all the evidence here to the contrary? Is this how a rationalist thinks and behaves?”

In the fourth chapter, Follis looks at the criticism laid on Schaeffer by the academics. Basically, Follis says, as Schaeffer himself admits, he is not an academic. He is a practitioner. He takes ideas from Machen and Buswell, ideas from Van Til, and he uses them to give honest answers to honest questions. So, Schaeffer never put together a system; there is no Schaefferism for people to follow. Schaeffer himself says there is no one apologetic for everyone. His approach is to deal with the individual.

Then in the conclusion, Follis rounds up by discussing whether Schaeffer is still relevant today and what is the major take away from his apologetics.

Now that we know what the book is about. Here are some of my reflections.

Appealing to Reason is the Way

First, I marvel at the prophetic voice of Francis Schaeffer. During a time when preachers would run up and down the pulpit condemning and blasting the sex and drugs of the 1960s, Schaeffer argued that the epistemology was “the central problem of our generation”.

How do you know that what you believe is true?

Schaeffer argues that a non-Christian cannot possibly live in consistency with his worldview, and his role is to lift the roof off the individual, expose his nakedness and despair and from that darkness lead him to the light.

As I understand Francis and Edith Schaeffer’s ministry, the L’Abri community, many people were in the darkness. People, especially young people, had questions, but the church was not answering them. Then you have the Schaeffers doing something radically different. They opened up their home to anyone who would come in. You could ask anything you want and, wow!, expect an answer. You are not told, “The Bible says so, and that is that.” You are in a dialogue with someone who is reasoning with you, appealing to your rationality, to deal with life’s questions.

And that is the problem.

Appealing to Reason is the Problem

It is this appeal to another person’s reason that got Schaeffer into a lot of trouble with fellow God-loving, God-fearing Christians.

Cornelius Van Til is the Professor of Apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary, a one-time teacher of Schaeffer. He was a big influence on Schaeffer. Schaeffer would always talk about dealing with people’s presuppositions. But Van Til did not agree with Schaeffer.

Follis quotes a question Van Til asked Schaeffer:

Am I wrong when I say that you are, not merely for the sake of argument, but in reality identifying yourself with the unbeliever so that together you may discover whether the Christian answer is really a proper answer to your common problem?

The important phrase is “For the sake of argument”. Van Til would engage with the unbeliever for the sake of argument, but Schaeffer would engage them not for the sake of argument but with a sincere belief that reasoning itself can lead to a realisation of the truth.

This here is where I find Follis’ book to be most helpful, which I don’t think I could have figured out even after reading Schaeffer and Van Til’s books. Here, I learn once again the importance of distinctions, of being precise and how it can easily resolve conflicts.

For Van Til, presuppositions in Man are fixed unless God changes them. For Schaeffer, presuppositions are hypotheses used by Man to navigate life. These hypotheses can be tested, challenged and changed through reasoning. As Follis shows, if we replace Schaeffer’s term, presuppositions, with hypotheses, the tension between Van Til and Schaeffer eases up a bit. There is a real difference between the two men’s theology, but now they don’t have to bicker about what presuppositions mean or are supposed to mean.

You may ask what is the big deal here?

I think it makes a difference in whether you would make the effort to engage unbelievers’ questions or if you think the effort is meaningful or effective.

As I understand from Follis’ book, in Van Til’s framework, Christians have no common ground with unbelievers because our worldviews are just so different. But Schaeffer, this is an interesting position to take. He does not disagree with Van Til. Yes, the believer and unbeliever truly do not have common ground because they have opposing worldviews, but because the unbeliever is not consistent with his own worldview, therefore, that common ground exists. And that gives Schaeffer a foothold to pull the guy over.

At this point, you might think that obviously Schaeffer’s apologetic is correct because we should engage with unbelievers and whenever possible, be ready and make that effort to be ready, to answer the questions they have.

The Surprising Critic: Martyn Lloyd Jones

I mentioned earlier that despite not knowing Schaeffer personally, Follis seems to take it slightly personally to defend Schaeffer against his critics. From this book, Follis clearly has a low, low opinion of Clark Pinnock in his criticisms. Follis, in different parts of the book, describes those criticisms as “superficial and inadequate”, “unfair”, and “sadly, somewhat petty”.

I can sympathise with Follis because I have my own heroes. For example, I have never met Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, but I have been incredibly influenced by him. And if people were unfair or misrepresenting Lloyd-Jones, I would write a book, like what Follis did for Schaeffer, or probably not, maybe a sharply worded blog, or just mumble quietly to myself that these people are idiots. The point is, I have my heroes, and I understand the need to defend them from unfair criticisms.

So it was a surprise to me that Martyn Lloyd-Jones was one of Schaeffer’s critics. Follis quotes Lloyd-Jones’ speech in 1969 at Westminster Theological Seminary:

Truth is revealed to us in the Scriptures and by the illumination that the Holy Spirit alone can produce. I argue therefore that this whole notion of having a debate or a discussion or exchange of views concerning these matters is something that is contrary to the very character and nature of the Gospel itself.

Follis attempts to minimise the difference by emphasising that Schaeffer had never “lost confidence in either Scripture or preaching.”

Before I go on, I just want to quickly note that Lloyd-Jones was friendly with Schaeffer. Follis notes that Lloyd-Jones visited L’Abri in 1957 and had preached at the wedding of Schaeffer’s eldest daughter, Priscilla, to John Sandri.

But let us consider whether there is something to Lloyd-Jones criticism of Schaeffer’s methods. For me to do a proper assessment, I should read Schaeffer’s books and his ministry at L’Abri. I didn’t, so please consider what I say next as a question rather than a conclusion.

While I completely support Schaeffer’s approach — I would meet unbelievers in a common ground and try to appeal to reason for them to come to the Kingdom, relying on the Holy Spirit who works through our God-given rationality to understand God’s Word and God’s Reality — I wonder whether people may have taken Schaeffer’s approach and pushed it further than he intended and that is how we have the seeker-sensitive movement.

We should not judge Schaeffer’s or anyone’s teaching by how others have taken it to their extreme points, but it is clear that Lloyd-Jones’ position is a strong antithesis to the seeker-sensitive movement, which overly emphasises the unbeliever’s felt needs.

Love as the Final Apologetic

I wish I had more time to discuss Follis’s write-up on Schaeffer’s spirituality and commitment to love every individual that comes his way.

I like this quote from Os Guinness, who was asked to sum up his view on Schaeffer. Follis quotes him:

At the heart of everything he did and behind the genius of his life, were three very simple things you don’t often see in one person. A passionate love for God, a passionate love for people and a passionate love for truth.

And it would be nice, an achievement, if at the end of my life, if the people around me, my friends and family, were to say that I had a passionate love for God, a passionate love for people and a passionate love for truth. That is something you and I should aspire towards.

Which brings me to my final point in this book review. Francis and Edith Schaeffer’s fourth son did not feel that passionate love.

Follis hints at this but never fully addresses the family conflict in his book. In a footnote, Follis writes:

Franky’s writings reveal a certain sarcastic attitude and lack a mature Christian relational dimension. For example, in the 1980s he wrote several books attacking the “pathetic servility” of prominent evangelicals. After he left evangelicalism for Eastern Orthodoxy he wrote a novel, which was widely perceived as drawing on his own family experiences and can only be described as cruel.

Franky Schaeffer published a book titled Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back. Crazy for God came out after Truth with Love, so it was not possible for Follis to respond to Franky’s claims.

However, it is clear from the footnote that Franky offers a sharp criticism of the apologetics of Francis Schaeffer. When love is taught as the Final Apologetic, then Franky’s account accuses the Schaeffers of being hypocrites. And even if we dismiss Franky’s memoir as unfair and untrue, I still think that it is helpful for us to consider the impact of Francis and Edith’s ministry on the home. If only to prepare others who may want to follow what they have done. There is a danger we romanticise the highs and lows of their life and ignore the real impact it had on the family.

This book is a defence of Schaeffer’s apologetics, and Follis argues convincingly that the L’Abri community is part of that apologetic. Since the L’Abri community is about bringing people into their lives to see that God exists, it is important to defend the authenticity of that life. Because the apologetic question of the day is whether a Christian can live out his faith authentically. Francis and Edith Schaeffer say yes. Franky, their son, says no.

If Follis has the opportunity to do a second edition of this book, he should evaluate Franky’s claims the same way he evaluated Van Til, Pinnock and all the other critics, with evidence, measured analysis that leads to an honest acceptance that Schaeffer could have done better in some parts without giving up his deep love for the man and his legacy.

Conclusion

Let’s draw this up into a conclusion.

In a perfect world, before I read this book, I would have read Francis Schaeffer’s books, especially the Trilogy: The God Who is There, Escape from Reason and the last book, He is There and He is Not Silent. I would know whether the criticisms against Schaeffer in what he wrote were valid, and I would also know whether it is worthwhile defending Schaeffer’s apologetic.

And most of all, I expect to see for myself how Schaeffer lifts the roof off someone. Follis often describes how Schaeffer does apologetics, but he never gives an example, a simple exchange to illustrate how Schaeffer works his magic. Throughout the whole book, I find myself wishing for an example, which I guess I would have to find in Schaeffer’s books.

The book is good, but probably better for fans of Schaeffer or people familiar with his work. If you want to get a book that tells the life of Schaeffer and his impact, this is not the book. This is the book to get if you want to hear an argument for the validity and relevance of Schaeffer’s apologetics. Or if you want to sharpen your thoughts by tracing through a defence of modern Christianity’s most influential apologist.

This is a Reading and Readers’ review of Truth with Love: The Apologetics of Francis Schaeffer by Bryan A. Follis. Thank you and bye-bye.