Francis Schaeffer -- Apologist and Evangelist (Part Four)

“Taking the Roof Off”

1). I think this is the most helpful and significant area of Francis Schaeffer’s apologetic methodology. “Taking the roof off,” or “finding the point of tension,” is at the center of Schaeffer’s approach to defending the faith.

2). Schaeffer bases this notion upon the principle of “common ground” occupied by both believer and unbeliever. Says Schaeffer,

“If the man before you were logical to his non-Christian presuppositions, you would have no communication with him. . . . But in reality no one can live logically according to his own non-Christian presuppositions, and consequently, because he is faced with the real world and himself, in practice you will find a place were you can talk. . . . In practice then, we do have a point for conversation, but this point is not properly to be spoken of as `neutral’. There are no neutral facts,[1] for facts are God’s facts. However, there is common ground between the Christian and non-Christian because regardless of a man’s system, he has to live in God’s world.”[2]

For Schaeffer, then, the Christian doctrine of creation underlies the apologetic task. The world has been created by God in a particular manner, and therefore certain foundational first principles of knowledge which work in our world are necessary to both Christian and non-Christian alike—no communication is possible without them.

3). For Schaeffer, the central principle is that of antithesis (the law of non-contradiction). God has created humans in his own image, therefore people are naturally able (even while fallen they remain human) to use those foundational first principles of knowledge. In fact people cannot even think or communicate without them. But the non-Christian believes in a world of chance (no God, but order), fate, or determinism, or chaos. If this is the world that is, then what use is there in even trying to communicate? A first principle might change or no longer be valid tomorrow. Schaeffer sees this point very clearly. “If he were consistent to his non-Christian presuppositions he would be separated from the real universe and the real man, and conversation and communication would not be possible.”[3]

4). Schaeffer correctly fancies this to be the presuppositional method—i.e. challenging the foundation of non-Christian thought using a transcendental argument. “In this way, it does seem to me that presuppositional apologetics should be seen as ending the conversation with the people around us. . . . There is no use talking today until the presuppositions are taken into account, and especially the crucial presuppositions concerning the nature of truth and the method of attaining truth.”[4] But one can argue presuppositionally without adopting the presuppositionalist epistemology–Schaeffer being a good example. We can identify presuppositions of method (i.e., Thomas Reid and the Scottish Common Sense philosophers), without arguing for presuppositions of content (Van Til). What is necessary to know, not what is known innately? Since everyone does have presuppositions, the question should be asked, “whose presuppositions are the right ones?” To answer this, we must then deal with the ways in which we come to know before we examine the facts at hand. This is what Schaeffer is trying to do here.

5). Because genuine communication is possible (because of non-neutral common ground), we can force the non-Christian to deal with some of the consequences of their own belief system. “Let us remember that every person that we speak to, whether shop girl or university student, has a set of presuppositions, whether he or she has analyzed them or not. If a man were logical to his presuppositions he would come out at the line at the right ('The logical conclusion of his non-Christian presuppositions').”[5]

6). Schaeffer correctly sees that this results in a rather significant problem for the non-Christian.

“Non-Christian presuppositions simply do not fit into what God has made, including what man is. This being so, every man is in a place of tension. Man cannot make his own world and then live in it . . . . A man may try to bury the tension and you may have to help him find it, but somewhere there is a point of inconsistency. He stands in a position he cannot pursue to the end; and this is not just an intellectual concept of tension, it is what is wrapped up in what he is as a man. . . . Every person is somewhere along the line between the real world and the logical conclusion of his or her non-Christian presuppositions. Every person has the pull of two consistencies, the pull towards the real world and the pull towards the logic of his system. . . . The more logical a man who holds a non-Christian position is to his own presuppositions, the further he is from the real world; and the nearer he is to the real world, the more illogical he is to his presuppositions.”[6]

7). According to Schaeffer, “Therefore, the first consideration in our apologetics for modern man, whether factory-hand or research student, is to find the place where his tension exists. . . . It will take time and it will cost something to discover what the person we are speaking to often has not discovered it for himself.”[7] Schaeffer’s pastoral heart cautions us to be very careful in this enterprise. “As I seek to do this, I need to remind myself constantly that this is not a game that I am playing. . . . As I push the man off his false balance, he must be able to feel that I care for him. . . . Pushing him towards the logic of his presuppositions is going to cause him pain; therefore, I must not push him any further than I need to.”[8] Schaeffer’s advice should be heeded by all who engage in the apologetic task.

8). We proceed to the next step.

“As we get ready to tell the person God’s answer to his or her need, we must make sure that the individual understands that we are talking about real truth, and not about something vaguely religious which seems to work psychologically. We must make sure that he understands that we are talking about real guilt before God, and that we are not offering him merely relief for his guilt feelings. We must make sure that we are talking to him about history, and that the death of Jesus was not just an ideal or symbol but a fact of space and time. . . . Until he understands the importance of these three things he is not ready to become a Christian.”[9]

9). Schaeffer goes on to add . . .

“The truth that we let in first is not a dogmatic statement of the truth of the Scriptures,[10] but the truth of the external world and the truth of what man himself is. This is what shows him his need. The Scriptures then show him the real nature of his lostness and the answer to it. This, I am convinced, is the true order for our apologetics in the second half of the twentieth century for people living under the line of despair.”[11]

10). Schaeffer relates this to preaching of the gospel.

“This is what we mean by taking the roof off. But we cannot ever think this to be easy. The hardest thing of all is that when we have exposed modern man to his tension, he still may not be willing for the true solution.[12] Consequently, we may seem to leave him in a worse state than he was in before. But this is the same as the evangelism of the past. Whenever the evangelist preached the reality of hell, men who did not believe were more miserable after hearing his preaching than if they had never heard him. We are in the same position. We confront men with reality; we remove their protection and their escapes; we allow the avalanches to fall. If they do not become Christians, they are indeed in a worse state than before we spoke to them.”[13]

11). Schaeffer gives us several examples of this, my favorite being that of the mushroom collector/musician, John Cage. Mr. Cage spent most of his life applying his belief in a chance universe to music. Cage invented mechanical devises for producing random sounds and noise— sounds consistent with Cage’s view of the universe. For some strange reason, his audiences often booed him. Cage sees no meaning or order to life, so he creates music that reflects that belief. But as Schaeffer delightfully points out, Mr. Cage lives in a world that has been created by God, and therefore he cannot live out his presuppositions. Mr. Cage has an interesting hobby, that of collecting mushrooms. What if Mr. Cage should pick his mushrooms by chance? He just might pick a toadstool and kill himself!! Even the most ardent of non-Christians cannot live according to his own presuppositions.[14]

12). There is much for us to learn from Francis Schaeffer at this point. “Taking the roof off” is a valuable apologetic technique, and is greatly strengthened by using the evidences for the resurrection of Christ and the authority of Scripture.

Summarizing Schaeffer’s Apologetic Methodology

1). Francis Schaeffer's apologetic method places great stress on coherence as a test for truth.[15] “The Christian system (what is taught in the whole Bible) is a unity of thought. Christianity is not just a lot of bits and pieces - there is a beginning and an end, a whole system of truth, and this system is the only system that will stand up to all the questions that are presented to us as we face the reality of existence.”[16]

a.) For Schaeffer, “the strength of the Christian system - the acid test of it - is that everything fits under the apex of the existent, infinite-personal God, and it is the only system in the world where this is true.”[17]

b). “Proof consists of two steps: A). The theory must be non-contradictory and must give an answer to the phenomenon in question. B). We must be able to live consistently with the theory.”[18]

2). Gordon Lewis contends that Schaeffer is advocating a sophisticated “verificational” apologetic by speaking in this manner. But as indicated earlier, this is somewhat of a questionable conclusion. Because Schaeffer uses coherence in the manner in which he does, it can lead to confusion. As best as I can determine, Schaeffer’s method would work itself out as follows:

a). The existence of the infinite-personal God is presupposed. This starting point (or worldview) alone can provide a coherent view of reality. Without presupposing this, there is no way to find meaning or make sense of reality.

b). The non-Christian is to be confronted by the Christian truth-claim. The following three things are to be communicated to them.

That we are talking about real truth, not just vaguely religious statements.

That we are talking about real personal guilt before the “God who is there.”

That we are talking about the Jesus of history, and not just some symbol or ideal.

3). The non-Christian is to be challenged to explain the nature of reality in light of his own presuppositions - i. e., “the world as it is” and the “mannishness of man.” We can then “take the roof off,” by pressing the non-Christian to see the logical conclusions of his own worldview.

4). Then, the Scriptures (which are objectively grounded in history) can be used to show the non-Christian the nature of his lostness, his inability to explain reality apart from God, and the Bible's answer to his dilemma.

5). The non-Christian can be shown the historical accuracy of the Bible, and by using coherence as a test for truth, he can be shown that the Christian worldview is non-contradictory and that it alone provides the solution to the problem of meaning, and the explanation of reality.

6). By living within his own biblical presuppositions, the Christian can approach the non-Christian as a fellow man created in the image and likeness of God. His own life should exemplify what he professes to believe and the non-Christian is never to be made to feel as if the Christian's methodology of apologetic has priority over his own needs, feelings and honest questions. Nevertheless, the non-Christian should be left to bear the weight of his own inability to explain the world and reality.

______________________________________

[1] This terminology is lifted directly from Van Til, but the way Schaeffer deals with common ground is not.

[2] Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, 137-138. (Hereafter,TGWIT).

[3] TGWIT, 137-138.

[4] TGWIT, 137-138.

[5] TGWIT, 131-32.

[6] TGWIT, 132-34.

[7] TGWIT, 135.

[8] TGWIT, 138-139.

[9] TGWIT, 138-139.

[10] Again, Van Til would not approve of such a position.

[11] TGWIT, 140-41.

[12] This is a criticism I would raise against those who use the presuppositional method exclusively. Just because we can show the non-Christian his own point of tension, we still have not demonstrated Christianity to be true.

[13] TGWIT, 142.

[14] TGWIT, 77ff. Schaeffer also uses Albert Camus as an example. See page 134.

[15] Coherence can reveal the falsity of a system (a negative test for truth), but is not necessarily a positive test for truth.

[16] TGWIT, 178.

[17] Schaeffer, He is There and He Is Not Silent, 81.

[18] TGWIT, 109.

Francis SchaefferKim RiddlebargerFebruary 14, 2025Taking the Roof Off2 Comments