Francis Schaeffer the Evangelist

By David W. Jones

[Assistant Professor of Christian Ethics, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587]

In his journal, First Things, Richard John Neuhaus claimed that “in the evangelical community, [Francis Schaeffer’s] influence was possibly only second ... to that of C. S. Lewis.”[1] Similarly, other scholars have noted that Francis Schaeffer “has been the single most challenging and visionary theological voice of evangelical Christianity in the latter half of the twentieth century,”[2] and that “no intellectual, save C. S. Lewis, affected the thinking of evangelicals more profoundly. .. [or] left a deeper stamp on the movement as a whole [than Francis Schaeffer].”[3] Furthermore, Schaeffer’s impact on Christian scholarship is apparent as he has been compared by various writers to Cornelius Van Til for his philosophy and apologetics,[4] to Helmut Thielicke and Jacques Ellul for his ethics and views on culture,[5] and to Dietrich Bonhoeffer and even Athanasius for his theological influence.[6] While it is evident, then, that Francis Schaeffer is considered by many to be an important and influential thinker, as the above comparisons illustrate, there is no unanimity of thought as to how to classify Francis Schaeffer and his writings. To elaborate, while some writers have characterized Schaeffer as a theologian,[7] others have labeled him a philosopher,[8] an apologist,[9] or even a prophet.[10] With this confusion over Schaeffer’s disciplinary identity in view, it is the contention of this paper that Francis Schaeffer was primarily an evangelist and that his purpose in writing was, therefore, chiefly evangelistic. In this work, this thesis will be defended by: (1) examining several aspects of Schaeffer’s methodology—for which he was oftentimes sorely criticized—in an attempt to suggest that it betrays an evangelistic intent; and (2) by surveying various pieces of empirical evidence from Schaeffer’s works and ministry that likewise point to an evangelistic end.

An Overview of Francis Schaeffer’s Thought

Before marshaling evidence in support of the aforementioned thesis, one should first survey Francis Schaeffer’s general thought. While this overview is not exhaustive in scope,[11] it will serve three purposes: First, it will expose the reader to the general themes in Schaeffer’s writings; second, it will introduce the reader to Schaeffer’s methodology; and third, it will lay the foundation for the thesis that Schaeffer’s purpose was primarily evangelistic.

In his lifetime Francis Schaeffer wrote or cowrote twenty-four different books.[12] Of these twenty-four texts, three are identified by Schaeffer himself as being representative of the core of his thought. These volumes are: The God Who Is There, Escape from Reason, and He Is There and He Is Not Silent. In the preface to The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, assembled shortly before his death, Schaeffer noted that these three works constitute his “basic trilogy” and that “all the others fit into these as spokes of the wheel fit into the hub.”[13] Furthermore, in the introduction to He Is There and He Is Not Silent, Schaeffer asserted, “This book, with the first two [The God Who Is There and Escape from Reason], makes a unified base; and without them the various applications in the later books are really a few feet off the ground.”[14] Therefore, in order to gain an understanding of Schaeffer’s general thought, one should survey these three core texts.

A reading of Schaeffer’s basic trilogy reveals that his general methodology and thought are centered around a belief in both the continuity of ideas and the sufficiency of the biblical revelation. With these two foundational convictions, Schaeffer constructs his system of thought on the notion that many of the problems with modern epistemology can be traced back to the teachings of Thomas Aquinas.[15] According to Schaeffer, since Aquinas taught that man’s intellect was unaffected by the Fall, Aquinas unwittingly opened the door to autonomous reason-that is, in his system of thought Aquinas allowed for the possibility of philosophies to develop apart from a dependance upon divine revelation and God’s grace. Once loosed from the restraints of divine revelation and the accompanying presuppositions, autonomous reason, aided by Hegelian relativism,[16] devastated the basis for holding to biblical absolutes. This, in turn, left mankind with a bifurcated and essentially untenable worldview that sees no correlation between what Schaeffer referred to as the “lower realm of nature” and the “upper realm of grace.”[17] In this brave new world, observed Schaeffer, mankind is plagued by a sense of meaninglessness and hopelessness that stems from a lack of absolutes and practical consistency. Consequently, natural man must choose between either despair, on the one hand, and an equally undesirable and irrational Kierkegaardian “leap of faith” on the other.[18] Furthermore, this choice between despair and irrationality is not limited to the disciplines of philosophy or theology, but is evident in the arts, music, and general culture.[19] According to Schaeffer, the only way out of this philosophical conundrum is for mankind to return to the presuppositions set forth in the biblical revelation. Such a return to a biblical, or Reformational, worldview, concludes Schaeffer, is the only hope for the disintegrating Western culture.

Francis Schaeffer’s Methodology

In light of the fact that all twenty-four of Francis Schaeffer’s publications are either an explanation or application of the system of thought summarized above, it is perhaps easy to understand why some writers have labeled Schaeffer a philosopher or a theologian. Yet, while it is true that Francis Schaeffer did work in the fields of philosophy and theology, among others, it is the contention of this paper that Schaeffer did so primarily with an evangelistic intent. One of the ways that this claim may be supported is by analyzing various aspects of Francis Schaeffer’s methodology.[20]

For the purpose of this Brief study two areas of Schaeffer’s methodology will be explored. First, in an effort to study a broad aspect of his writings, Schaeffer’s stylistic methodology will be analyzed. Second, and more specifically, this work will examine Schaeffer’s apologetic methodology. Both of these aspects of Francis Schaeffer’s methodology, it will be shown, point to his evangelistic intent.

Francis Schaeffer’s Stylistic Methodology

Perhaps one of the areas of Francis Schaeffer’s methodology that most clearly suggests his evangelistic aim is his style of presentation. Not coincidentally, Schaeffer’s stylistic methodology is one of the areas in which he has been most frequently criticized by those who have mistaken his purpose in writing to be purely academic. For example, when referring to Schaeffer’s style of presentation philosopher Ronald Ruegsegger accused Schaeffer of “oversimplification and superficiality,”[21] and author Robert Reymond charged Schaeffer with “imprecision in definition and inarticulation of concepts.”[22] In a similar manner, when reviewing Schaeffer’s works, historian Richard Pierard made mention of “Schaefferian oversimplification,”[23] and theologian Clark Pinnock, one of Schaeffer’s former ministerial staff members, noted quite critically:

Schaeffer’s books are a nightmare to review because in place of a careful tracing of ideas one discovers a kaleidoscope of images and illustrations which is often quite bewildering. At times one feels that language has gone on a holiday. He flits from Aquinas, to Gauguin, to Rousseau, to Hegel, without ever saying enough to convince the discerning reader how it all fits together and whether the references are intellectually respectable. The books give the impression of a pop-history of ideas which may, unless the details are filled in soon, end up discrediting the Christian faith in the eyes of critical non-Christians.[24]

Although all of the above writers undoubtedly intended for their comments to be a rebuke of Schaeffer and his works, these criticisms corporately testify to the fact that Francis Schaeffer did not write in an elite, academic style. Indeed, a reading of Schaeffer’s texts does not reveal an amalgamation of religious terminology, technical language, and scholarly prose. Rather, Schaeffer’s works reflect a clear, simple, and oftentimes undocumented style of language common to the average man.[25] Concerning his own works, Schaeffer himself even noted, “[although my books do require] care and study and are not popular reading to be pursued while dozing in an armchair,” they, nevertheless, are appropriate for both “non-Christians. .. [and] the less academic.”[26] It is evident, then, that while Francis Schaeffer’s stylistic methodology does not portray a pedantic design, it does, perhaps, allude to an evangelistic intent.

Francis Schaeffer’s Apologetic Methodology

Another aspect of Francis Schaeffer’s methodology that reveals his evangelistic aim is his apologetics. Schaeffer’s apologetic methodology is perhaps an especially appropriate area of his methodology to study, for it is the most oft-debated aspect of his writings, as it has produced no less than four articles,[27] and three books.[28] In fact, in their volume on Francis Schaeffer’s apologetics, authors Scott Burson and Jerry Walls note that “the question of apologetic methodology is probably the most disputed and controversial subject surrounding the life and ministry of Francis Schaeffer.”[29] While this claim may be contested by some, it is certainly true that there is no consensus of thought among scholars as to the proper classification of Francis Schaeffer’s apologetic methodology. For instance, while the majority of writers have identified Schaeffer as a presuppositionalist,[30] others have labeled him a verificationist,[31] and yet another has classified Schaeffer as an evidentialist.[32]

At first glance, Francis Schaeffer’s apologetic methodology does indeed appear to be that of a thoroughgoing presuppositionalist.[33] For example, in his foundational text, The God Who Is There, Schaeffer includes a section in the first chapter entitled, “Presuppositional Apologetics Would Have Stopped the Decay.” In this section Schaeffer decrees, “Now for us, more than ever, a presuppositional apologetic is imperative.”[34] Furthermore, in the same volume, Schaeffer seems to identify the main presupposition of his apologetic when he writes, “If one begins to consider the Christian system as a total system, one must begin with the infinite-personal triune God who is there, and who was communicating and loving before anything else was…One must begin with Christ, His person and His work.”[35] Schaeffer later echoed this same thought in Escape from Reason as he wrote, “When the Bible says that man is created in the image of a personal God, it gives us a starting point. ... It tells him the adequate reference point, the infinite personal God.”[36]

In spite of these citations, which appear to mark Schaeffer as a presuppositionalist, further reading in Schaeffer’s works reveals that he was not an unqualified presuppositionalist, for he frequently made use of evidentialist-type proofs for the existence of God.[37] For example, in The God Who Is There Schaeffer appealed to a form of the teleological argument for the existence of God when he wrote:

No one has ever thought of a way of deriving personality from non-personal sources. Therefore, biblical Christianity has an adequate and reasonable explanation for the source and meaning of human personality. Its source is sufficient—the personal God on the high order of Trinity. Without such a source men are left with personality coming from the impersonal (plus time, plus chance). The two alternatives are very clear cut. Either there is a personal beginning to everything or one has what the impersonal throws up by chance out of the time sequence.[38]

Later in the same volume, Schaeffer alluded to the moral argument for the existence of God as he noted, “Modern theology may use the term guilt, but because it is not orientated in a true moral framework, it turns out to be no more than guilt feelings.. .. But where there is a real moral guilt before The God Who Is There, this must never be passed off or explained away.”[39]

Evidentialist-type arguments, such as the ones cited above, coupled with Schaeffer’s apparent affection for presuppositionalism, are the main reasons for the current debate over the classification of Schaeffer’s apologetic methodology. While it is true that the presence of these antithetical methodologies may in fact reveal, as Schaeffer’s critics have charged, that he was an inconsistent apologist,[40] it is also possible that Schaeffer’s use of these contradictory methodologies is, as Norman Geisler has suggested, an indication of a pragmatic evangelistic intent.[41] In other words, a possible explanation as to the reason why Francis Schaeffer employed seemingly contradictory apologetic methodologies is that he was willing to use any apologetic methodology, or combination thereof, which he deemed to be practical and effective.[42]

Empirical Evidence

While the preceding material concerning Francis Schaeffer’s methodology—both stylistic and apologetic—may point to an evangelistic design, the evidence is far from conclusive. After all, it may simply be the case that in regard to his stylistic methodology, Francis Schaeffer was a poor communicator; and in regard to his apologetic methodology, Schaeffer was irresponsible or just plain confused. There is, however, an additional vein of evidence in Schaeffer’s works that decisively points to his evangelistic aim. This evidence consists of empirical prima facie statements, made by Schaeffer himself, to the effect that he considered himself to be an evangelist, or at least to be writing with an evangelistic intent. The first, and perhaps most obvious, kind of empirical evidence relating to Schaeffer’s evangelistic intent are the purpose statements with which Schaeffer either prefaced or concluded a number of his works. For example, Schaeffer’s evangelistic aim can be detected in the purpose statement that he penned in an appendix of The God Who Is There. In this text Schaeffer notes:

What I try to do in The God Who Is There is to show that when we get to those holding the concept that there is no such thing as objective (or universal) truth, we can still keep talking. ... If we are to deal with people where they are (whether they can express their position in a sophisticated way or not), we have got to have enough genuine love for them ... which is to take the person where they are and actually step into their world in order to talk in a meaningful way to them.[43]

Similarly, in Escape from Reason, Schaeffer asserts that his impetus for writing Escape from Reason was to teach the reader how to “speak meaningfully to. .. [his] own age ... [and to] communicate unchanging truth in a changing world.”[44] Again, Schaeffer’s evangelistic goal may be seen in the introduction to his book Basic Bible Studies, as here Schaeffer suggests that the prospective reader begin his study by praying, “O God, if there is a God, I want to know whether You exist. And I ask You that I may be willing to bow before You if You do exist.”[45] Clearly, then, these sample purpose statements add weight to the claim that Francis Schaeffer wrote with an evangelistic intent.

A second type of empirical evidence that witnesses to Schaeffer’s evangelistic aim is the corpus of general comments regarding Schaeffer’s own purpose and identity that he made in his works, in interviews, and in public debates. For the purpose of this study, several such examples may be cited. First, in a brief yet often overlooked article that Schaeffer wrote early in his ministry entitled, Why and How I Write My Books, Schaeffer declared that he published his books in order “to present the gospel to the twentieth-century man so that it is really simple to him. .. [and to] emphasize the reality of an individual relationship with The God Who Is There.”[46] Second, when Schaeffer was asked in a written interview how he would describe himself, he replied:

My interest is evangelism. To evangelize in the twentieth century, one has to operate across the whole spectrum of disciplines and have answers for questions.. .. Evangelism, then, is two things: first of all, giving honest answers to honest questions to get the blocks out of the way so that people will listen to the gospel as a viable alternative, and then secondly, showing what Christianity means across the spectrum of life.[47]

Third, when asked at a public debate held in Anaheim, California to answer a technical question regarding apologetics, Schaeffer responded, “I’m not an academic, scholastic apologist. My interest is in evangelism.”[48] Finally, a fourth example of Schaeffer’s classification of his own ministry appears in an appendix that Schaeffer added to his original work The God Who Is There shortly before his death. In this new appendix Schaeffer noted, “People often say, ‘What are you?’ and at times I have said, ‘Well, basically I am an evangelist.’... The whole thing [i.e., Schaeffer’s ministry] is evangelism to the people who are caught in the second lostness. .. the second lostness being that they do not have any answers to the questions of meaning, purpose, and so on.”[49]

Summary and Conclusion

In light of current discrepancies over Francis Schaeffer’s disciplinary identity and certain criticisms of his work, this paper has attempted to demonstrate that Francis Schaeffer was foremost an evangelist and that his purpose in writing was, therefore, primarily evangelistic. This thesis has been defended by examining several aspects of Schaeffer’s methodology and by surveying various pieces of empirical evidence from Schaeffer’s life and works that testify to an evangelistic end. After a brief study of Schaeffer’s stylistic and apologetic methodologies, it was suggested above that both Schaeffer’s simple style of presentation and his eclectic apologetic are indicative of an evangelistic design. Furthermore, several pieces of empirical prima facie evidence-—consisting of purpose statements from Schaeffer’s books and other general comments—were cited within this paper that, likewise, point to an evangelistic end.

In conclusion, it should be noted that while the above evidence does indeed point to the fact that Francis Schaeffer was an evangelist, he nevertheless believed that evangelism was not the ultimate purpose in life for the Christian. Although he obviously held evangelism in high regard, high enough to devote a large portion of his life to the practice and promotion of it, in Genesis in Time and Space, Francis Schaeffer the evangelist noted, “Evangelism is a calling, but not the first calling. Building congregations is a calling, but not the first calling. A Christian’s first call is to step from the line of Cain into the line of Abel, [and] upon the basis of the shed blood of the Lamb of God—to return to the first commandment to love God, to love the brotherhood, and then to love one’s neighbor as himself.”[50] Of course, as his writings and ministry reveal, Schaeffer believed that taking such a step into the line of Abel, and subsequently maintaining the greatest and second commandment, would result—whether one intended it or not—in the evangelization of individuals and the glorification of God.

Notes

1. Richard John Neuhaus, “The Schaeffer Legacy,” First Things 34 (June-July 1993): 64.
2. Daniel R. Heimbach, Lecture Notes: The Ethical Teaching of Francis Schaeffer (Wake Forest, NC: Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, n.d), 1.
3. Michael S. Hamilton, “The Dissatisfaction of Francis Schaeffer,” Christianity Today (March 3, 1997): 22.
4. William Edgar, “Two Christian Warriors: Cornelius Van Til and Francis Schaeffer,” Westminster Theological Journal 57 (Spring 1995): 57-80; James Emery White, What Is Truth? A Comparative Study of the Positions of Cornelius Van Til, Francis Schaeffer, Carl F. H. Henry, Donald Bloesch, and Millard Erickson (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994); D. G. Blomberg, “Apologetic Education: Francis Schaeffer and LAbri,” Journal of Christian Education 54 (December 1975): 5-6.
5. Thomas K. Johnson, “The Moral Crisis of the West: Reflections From Helmut Thielicke and Francis Schaeffer,” Presbyterion 17, no. 2 (Fall 1991): 199-24; David W. Gill, “Jacques Ellul and Francis Schaeffer: Two Views of Western Civilization,” Fides et Historia 13, no. 2 (Spring-Summer 1981): 23-37.
6. Clark H. Pinnock, “Schaeffer on Modern Theology,” in Reflections on Francis Schaeffer, ed. Ronald W. Ruegsegger (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986), 192; Harold O. J. Brown, “Standing Against the World: Contemporary Theology,” in Francis A. Schaeffer: Portraits of the Man and His Work, ed. Lane T. Dennis (Westchester, IL: Cross-way Books, 1986), 26. It is interesting to note that Brown also compares Schaeffer’s theological influence to that of Soren Kierkegaard, whom Schaeffer considered to be both the author and arch villain of modern theology. Brown, 18.
7. Heimbach, Lecture Notes, 1.
8. Hamilton, “The Dissatisfaction of Francis Schaeffer,” 30.
9. Ronald W. Ruegsegger, “Francis Schaeffer on Philosophy,” Christian Scholar’s Review 10, no. 3 (1981): 251; Arthur Holmes, review of The God Who Is There, by Francis A. Schaeffer, in HIS 29, no. 5 (February 1969): 26; Scott R. Burson and Jerry L. Walls, C. S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer: Lessons for a New Century from the Most Influential Apologists of Our Time (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998).
10. Kenneth C. Harper, “Francis A. Schaeffer: An Evaluation,” Bibliotheca Sacra 133, no. 530 (April-June 1976): 140.
11. For a more comprehensive overview of Schaeffer’s thought and methodology see Ronald W. Ruegsegger, “Schaeffer’s System of Thought,” in Reflections on Francis Schaeffer, Ronald W. Ruegsegger, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986), 25–41. Readers desiring more of a biographical account of Schaeffer’s life and ministry should see Louis A. Parkhurst, Francis Schaeffer: The Man and His Message (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1985).
12. Schaeffer’s texts are listed chronologically here according to their United States publication date. Francis A. Schaeffer, The God Who Is There (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1968); Francis A. Schaeffer, Escape from Reason (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1968); Francis A. Schaeffer, Death in the City (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1969); Francis A. Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1970); Francis A. Schaeffer, The Mark of a Christian (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1970); Francis A. Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1970); Francis A. Schaeffer, True Spirituality (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1971); Francis A. Schaeffer, The Church Before the Watching World (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1971); Francis A. Schaeffer, He Is There and He Is Not Silent (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1972); Francis A. Schaeffer, Back to Freedom and Dignity (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1972); Francis A. Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1972); Francis A. Schaeffer, Basic Bible Studies (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1972); Francis A. Schaeffer, The New Super-Spirituality (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1972); Francis A. Schaeffer, Art and the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973); Francis A. Schaeffer and Edith Schaeffer, Everyone Can Know (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1973); Francis A. Schaeffer, No Little People (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1974); Francis A. Schaeffer, Two Contents, Two Realities (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1974); Francis A. Schaeffer, No Final Conflict (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975); Francis A. Schaeffer, Joshua and the Flow of Biblical History (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975); Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1976); Francis A. Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop, Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1979); Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1981); Francis A. Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1984). In addition to the above volumes, in the early 1950s Schaeffer did author a short book on his understanding of baptism that has been out of print for years. Also, a collection of Schaeffer’s personal letters was published posthumously as Francis A. Schaeffer and Lane T. Dennis, Letters of Francis A. Schaeffer (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1985). Most of the above titles (excluding the book on baptism, the volume coauthored with Edith Schaeffer, and the collection of letters) are available in a multivolume set entitled The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, 5 vols. (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1982).
13. Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, x.
14. Schaeffer, He Is There, ix. In the same introduction to He Is There and He Is Not Silent Schaeffer makes an interesting statement regarding the priority of the three volumes that he considered to be the core of his thought. Here Schaeffer noted, “My first two books were The God Who Is There and Escape from Reason. Many people assumed-perhaps because it is shorter-that Escape from Reason is the ‘introduction’ and The God Who Is There a development of it. In fact, the opposite is the case. The God Who Is There was written first; it lays the groundwork, establishes the terminology, and sets out the basic thesis.” Ibid. It ought also to be noted that part of the confusion over the priority of the texts in Schaeffer’s basic trilogy is due to the fact that Escape from Reason appeared on the market (in the United States) a few months before The God Who Is There because of a publisher’s error.
15. Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, 60; Schaeffer, Escape from Reason, 9–12.
16. Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, 20–21; Schaeffer, Escape from Reason, 40–42.
17. Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, 61; Schaeffer, Escape from Reason, 9–18.
18. Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, 21–22; Schaeffer, Escape from Reason, 42, 46–48.
19. While Schaeffer believes that the modern way of viewing truth, signaled by the rise of autonomous reason, began as a philosophical issue, he asserts that it quickly spread-geographically and through the societal structure-so that it now touches all areas of life. In his works Schaeffer identifies five fields in which the devastation of autonomous reason may be measured: philosophy, art, music, general culture (ethics), and theology. Furthermore, Schaeffer holds that autonomous reason affected the various areas of life, chronologically, in the order fisted above. The God Who Is There, 16; Escape from Reason, 42–45. The basic trilogy of The God Who Is There, Escape from Reason, and He Is There and He Is Not Silent essentially deals with the rise of autonomous reason in philosophy and theology, although Schaefer briefly touches upon the other disciplines mentioned above. For a more thorough treatment of the effects of autonomous reason on art and music, see Schaeffer, Art and the Bible; and Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? For a more thorough treatment of the effects of autonomous reason on general culture (ethics), see Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man; Schaeffer and Koop, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?; and Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto.
20. Since Schaeffer’s writings touched upon a variety of disciplines, there are many different aspects of his methodology that could be studied. In fact, many professional scholars from the fields in which Schaeffer worked have already comprehensively analyzed various facets of his methodology. For example, for an analysis of Schaeffer’s work in the field of philosophy, see Ruegsegger, “Francis Schaeffer on Philosophy;” Ronald W. Ruegsegger, “Schaeffer on Philosophy,” in Reflections on Francis Schaeffer (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986); Gordon H. Clark, “A Semi-Defense of Francis Schaeffer,” Christian Scholar’s Review 6, no. 2 (1982); for an analysis of Schaeffer’s work in the field of theology, see Pinnock, “Schaeffer on Modern Theology;” for an analysis of Schaeffer’s work in the field of apologetics, see Thomas V. Morris, Schaeffer’s Apologetic Method: A Critique (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976); Gordon R. Lewis, “Schaeffer’s Apologetic Method,” in Reflections on Francis Schaeffer (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986); for an analysis of Schaeffer’s work in the field of history, see Richard V. Pierard, “Schaeffer on History,” in Reflections on Francis Schaeffer (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986); Richard V. Pierard, “The Unmaking of Francis Schaeffer,” The Wittenburg Door 78 (April-May 1984); for an analysis of Schaeffer’s work in the fields of art and music, see Harold M. Best, “Schaeffer on Art and Music,” in Reflections on Francis Schaeffer (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986); for an analysis of Schaeffer’s work in the field of ethics, see Dennis P. Hollinger, “Schaeffer on Ethics,” in Reflections on Francis Schaeffer (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986).
21. Ruegsegger, “Francis Schaeffer on Philosophy,” 253.
22. Robert L. Reymond, The Justification of Knowledge (Nutley, NT: P & R, 1976), 147.
23. Pierard, “The Unmaking of Francis Schaeffer,” 31.
24. Clark H. Pinnock, review of True Spirituality, by Francis Schaeffer, in Christian Scholar’s Review 1, no. 4 (Summer 1971): 371. This charge of writing in an overly simple, nonscholarly manner was one that Pinnock frequently leveled against Schaeffer as elsewhere he wrote, “When it comes to specific knowledge about Aquinas or Kant or Kierkegaard, there are large gaps [in Schaeffer’s books]. What he says about them is minimal, and even then his judgments are controversial and undefended in the face of alternative readings. For whatever reasons, Francis Schaeffer is poorly informed about the historical side of the topics he elects to talk about. This explains, of course, why he is loved by the crowds and ignored by many evangelical scholars. ... All we have to do is to pick up any history or theology and see what reasonable summaries of the opinions of the great thinkers are like. Then when we turn to Schaeffer, what we find are fuzzy and blurred presentations, cryptic in the extreme, which tend to be pseudohistorical and leave us with the distinct impression that he has not read the original works themselves.” Pinnock, “Schaeffer on Modern Theology,” 185. See also, Pinnock’s comments in, Stephen Board, “The Rise of Francis Schaeffer,” Eternity (June 1977): 41. These stinging critiques of Schaeffer are surprising not only because Pinnock was a former LAbri staff member, but also because in one of Pinnock’s first books, Set Forth Your Case, he quotes Schaeffer quite approvingly. See Clark H. Pinnock, Set Forth Your Case (Nutley, NJ: Craige Press, 1967), ch. 2.
25. Another common criticism of Schaeffer’s stylistic methodology is that he frequently cites facts without giving adequate documentation. Examples of those who criticize Schaeffer for this lack of documentation include: Lewis, “Schaeffer’s Apologetic Method,” 76, 93; and Edwin A. Blum, review of He Is There and He Is Not Silent, by Francis Schaeffer, in Bibliotheca Sacra 130, no. 517 (January-March 1974): 74. In over 2,100 pages of Schaeffer’s literary corpus (in The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer), Schaeffer has just over 260 citations, an average of one citation every eight pages. The majority of these references are either to Scripture or to other works by Schaeffer himself. Additionally, more than a third of the 260 citations come from Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, the text Schaeffer coauthored with C. Everett Koop.
26. Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, x. While it is true that Francis Schaeffer’s books were written in a very readable manner, it ought to be noted that his works were not, as his critics have charged, overly simple or superficial. In fact, one of Schaeffer’s biggest complaints with many methods of evangelical evangelism was that it was too simple. For example, is his book Two Contents, Two Realities, Schaeffer warned against what he called “evangelical existentialism”—that is, the practice of encouraging someone to put their faith in Christ without asking questions or even understanding the gospel message. Schaeffer, Two Contents, Two Realities, in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, vol. 3, 408–9. Similarly, in his text, Death in the City, Schaeffer stated that “both a clear comprehension of the importance of the truth and a practice of it... are imperative if our witness and our evangelism are to be significant.” Schaeffer, Death in the City, 73. Furthermore, in The God Who Is There, Schaeffer wrote, “Before a man is ready to become a Christian, he must have a proper understanding of truth.. .. This matter of truth needs to be stressed before we can do effective evangelism.” Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, 143.
27. Blomberg, “Apologetic Education;” Edgar, “Two Christian Warriors;” Lewis, “Schaeffer’s Apologetic Method”; E. R. Geehan, “The ‘Presuppositional Apologetic of Francis Schaeffer,” Themelios 8, no. 1 (1972): 10-18.
28. Burson and Walls, C. S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer; Morris, Schaeffer’s Apologetic Method; White, What is Truth?
29. Burson and Walls, C. S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer, 143.
30. Morris, Schaeffer’s Apologetic Method, 17; Harper, “Francis A. Schaeffer,” 138; Pinnock, “Schaeffer on Modern Theology,” 188–90; L. Russ Bush, review of Francis Schaeffer’s Apologetics, by Thomas V. Morris, in Criswell Theological Review 3, no. 2 (Spring 1989): 406; Norman L. Geisler, ed., Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1999), s.v. “Presuppositional Apologetics,” 607–8.
31. Lewis, “Schaeffer’s Apologetic Method,” 69; Colin Brown, Philosophy and the Christian Faith (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity, 1968), 265.
32. Reymond, The Justification of Knowledge, 147.
33. It ought to be no surprise that Francis Schaeffer’s apologetic method reflects a presuppositionalist approach, for he studied for several years at Westminster Theological Seminary (1935–1937) under the champion of presuppositionalist apologetics, Cornelius Van Til. Throughout his life, Schaeffer continued to have contact with Van Til, both through personal letters and visits, and in his writings Schaeffer credits Van Til for influencing his methodology. Francis A. Schaeffer, “A Review of a Review,” The Bible Today 42 (October 1948): 7-9. For additional information regarding the impact of Van Til on Schaeffer, see Edgar, “Two Christian Warriors,” 57–80; White, What is Truth?, chs. 1–2; Harper, “Francis A. Schaeffer,” 137–40.
34. Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, 15.
35. Ibid., 104.
36. Schaeffer, Escape from Reason, 87.
37. In the article on “Presuppositional Apologetics” in the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, three types of pure or unqualified, presuppositional apologetics are identified along with the chief proponents of each view. These are: revelational presuppositionalism (Cornelius Van Til), rational presuppositionalism (Gordon Clark, Carl F. H. Henry), and systematic consistency (John Edward Carnell, Gordon Lewis). While these three varieties of presuppositionalism have shghtly different nuances, they all share the common denominator of rejecting both evidentialist and historical arguments for the existence of God. Schaeffer, however, accepted these arguments and made use of them in his texts. In light of this fact, this article goes on to suggest that Francis Schaeffer may constitute a fourth and entirely different variety of presuppositional apologetics that can be referred to as practical presuppositionalism. Geisler, ed., Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 607–8.
38. Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, 88.
39. Ibid., 102.
40. Pinnock, “Schaeffer on Modern Theology,” 185, 189; Reymond, The Justification of Knowledge, 147; Ruegsegger, “Francis Schaeffer on Philosophy,” 247; Harper, “Francis A. Schaeffer,” 138.
41. Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1976), 110–11.
42. Note, however, that while Francis Schaeffer was willing to employ a variety of different apologetic methodologies for evangelistic purposes, he was unwilling to engage in any evangelistic venture that he perceived to dilute the gospel message. For example, in The God Who Is There Schaeffer warned, “We must beware of cooperation in evangelistic enterprises which force us into a position of accepting the new theology as Christian.... We must be careful to consider what truth and antithesis mean in practice in ecclesiastical matters and in evangelism.” Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, vol. 1,112,190. Similarly, in Two Contents, Two Realities, Schaeffer wrote, “If I say that Christianity is really eternal truth, and the liberal theologian is wrong—so wrong that he is teaching that which is contrary to the Word of God-and then on any basis (including for the sake of evangelism) I am willing publically to act as though that man’s religious position is the same as my own, I have destroyed the practice of truth which my generation can expect from me and which it will demand of me if I am to have credibility.. .. Incidentally, almost certainly if we have a latitudinarianism in religious cooperation, the next generation will have a latitudinarianism in doctrine, and specifically a weakness toward the Bible.” Schaeffer, Two Contents, Two Realities, in the Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, vol. 4, 411. Additionally, in True Spirituality Schaeffer notes that evangelism can be done in the flesh. Schaeffer, True Spirituality, 64, 151.
43. Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, vol. 1, 177.
44. Schaeffer, Escape from Reason, 7–8.
45. Schaeffer, Basic Bible Studies, in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, vol. 2, 323.
46. Francis A. Schaeffer, “Why and How I Write My Books,” Eternity 24, no. 3 (March 1973): 65.
47. Francis A. Schaeffer, “How Should We Then Live?” Christianity Today 21 (October, 8 1976): 20.
48. Jack Rogers, “Francis Schaeffer: The Promise and the Problem (Part 1),” Reformed Journal 27, no. 5 (May 1977): 12-13.
49. Francis A. Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, vol. 1, 185–86.
50. Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time, 117. Similarly, in No Little People, Schaeffer lamented, “Fighting for evangelism and the salvation of souls should not become primary ... yet how often this happens.” Schaeffer, No Little People, 207–8