Francis Schaeffer -- Apologist and Evangelist (Part Three)
Francis Schaeffer’s Apologetic Methodology
Part two, the life and times of Francis Schaeffer
Presuppostionalist or Evidentialist?
1). Examining Schaeffer’s comments about epistemology will help us to answer a critical question often asked in regards to Schaeffer: “Is Francis Schaeffer an evidentialist or a presuppositionalist?”[1] While Schaeffer does not like this kind of question, nevertheless, he is one or the other, or some combination thereof.
2). Most important for our discussion, we cannot understand someone’s method for defending the faith apart from their views on knowledge, truth, and method. The study of Schaeffer’s epistemology is therefore essential in determining his methodology for defending the faith.
3). It seems that everyone who studies Schaeffer arrives at different conclusions about his methodology. As Gordon Lewis points out, in 1976 alone three major works appeared, all evaluating Schaeffer’s apologetic, and all arriving at differing conclusions.[2]
4). This raises the question, “when so many knowledgeable reviewers reach such different conclusions, what is the problem?” “Are the reviewers confused?” “Or is Schaeffer not clear?” I affirm the latter.[3]
5). Schaeffer is not clear in discussing verification and he appears to be very much at ease about mixing conflicting methodologies. There is a strong pragmatic inclination in his work. He approaches questions of truth as a pastor and evangelist (concerned with the person), not as a theologian or philosopher.[4] Nevertheless, he does indicate sympathy for the presuppositional approach to apologetics.
(6). This can be demonstrated from several of Schaeffer’s own statements:
a). “If one begins to consider the Christian system as a total system, then one must begin with the infinite-personal triune God who is there.”[5]
b). “Christianity, which begins with the existence of the infinite-personal God, man's creation in His image and a space-time Fall, does offer a nonself-contradictory answer which explains the phenomena and which can be lived with, both in life and in scholarly pursuits.”[6]
c). “It [Christianity] begins with a God who is there, who is the infinite-personal God, who has made man in His image.”[7]
7). In these statements, Schaeffer appears to be a presuppositionalist, in fact, claiming that he is . . . “Presuppositional apologetics would have stopped the decay. . . . The use of classical [evidential] apologetics before this shift took place was effective only because non-Christians were functioning, on the surface, on the same presuppositions, even if they had an inadequate base for them. In classical apologetics though, presuppositions were rarely analyzed, discussed or taken into account.”[8]
8). Yet, we also find comments in Schaeffer’s work in which he sounds very much like an evidentialist:
a). “In Christianity the value of faith depends upon the object toward which faith is directed. . . . This makes Christian faith open to discussion and verification.”[9]
b). “On the basis of Biblical Christianity a rational discussion and consideration can take place, because it is fixed in the stuff of history. When Paul was asked whether Jesus was raised from the dead, he gave a completely nonreligious answer, in the twentieth-century sense. He said: `There are almost 500 living witnesses; go and ask them!’ This is the faith that involves the whole man, including his reason; it does not ask for a belief into the void.”[10]
c). “So the positive side of apologetics is the communication of the gospel to the present generation in terms that they can understand. . . . The invitation to act comes only after an adequate base of knowledge has been given. . . . The word `sign’ is related to the historic events of the life, death and resurrection of Christ as put forth in this Gospel. . . . This history is open to verification by eyewitnesses. . . . Knowledge proceeds faith. This is crucial in understanding the Bible.”[11]
9). There are also instances in which Schaeffer sounds like someone advocating the hypothesis–verification approach of Gordon Lewis (which involves coherence, correspondence, and experiental meaning:[12]
a). “Therefore, the first consideration in our apologetics for modern man, whether factory-hand or research student, is to find the place where this tension exists.”[13]
b). “The truth that we let in first is not a dogmatic statement of the truth of the Scriptures, 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.”[14]
10). There are also places where Schaeffer takes a more pragmatic approach.
a). “The final apologetic, along with the rational, logical defense and presentation, is what the world sees in the individual Christian and in our corporate relationships together. The command that we should love another surely means something much richer than merely organizational relationship. . . . This too is a portion of the apologetic: a presentation which gives at least some demonstration that these things are not theoretical, but real; not perfect, yet substantial.”[15]
b). There is also in Schaeffer a tendency towards a rather pragmatic test, i.e. “that Christianity is true because it meets the deepest individual needs.”[16]
11). You can see from the preceding some of the difficulties in classifying Schaeffer as an evidentialist or a presuppositionalist. Clearly Schaeffer’s method is at best a mixed bag, and at worst self-contradictory.
12). Thomas Morris takes Schaeffer’s claims to be a presuppositionalist seriously. He considers Schaeffer to be a presuppositionalist because Schaeffer uses the term “necessity” in a manner similar to other presuppositionalists.[17]
13). Robert Reymond, himself a presuppositionalist,[18] considers Schaeffer to be an “inconsistent evidentialist.” Reymond finds Schaeffer’s works to be difficult to categorize because he does not precisely define terms or clearly spell out his methodology.
Schaeffer claims to be a presuppositionalist apologist and indeed insists that the need of the hour is a presuppositional apologetic. But as I understand him, he does not mean by this term an apologetic method that takes with radical seriousness as its self-attesting first principle all that the Scriptures teach about God, man, and the relationship between them. . . . But my main criticism is the (uncritical?) dialectic in Schaeffer which calls for both what occasionally really does appear to be a presuppositional methodology (The God Who Is There, 93) and also a test for truth devised by and acceptable to apostate man (109) rather than the self-authenticating test for truth which Scripture claims itself to be (Ps. 119:142, 151; Dan. 10:21; John 16:13: 17:17; 2 Tim. 2:15).[19]
I tend to agree with Reymond, that Schaeffer fancied himself to be a presuppositionalist, while in practice abandoning the epistemological bedrock of the presuppositional system (more on this below).
14). As previously mentioned, Gordon Lewis sees in Schaeffer, a sophisticated “verificational” apologetic which involves paradigm testing, using coherence, external fitting of facts and internal personal fulfillment. Now, admittedly all of these elements can be found in Schaeffer, as we have seen above. But did Schaeffer self-consciously adopt a verificationalism? Schaefer never makes such an identification. Schaeffer thought of himself as a presuppositionalist. And as Lewis is forced to admit, “unfortunately, Francis Schaeffer has not documented his sources, but it is inconceivable that he was unaware of some of the earlier writings of the verificationalists (i. e. Carnell, Trueblood and even Os Guiness, himself a student of Schaeffer”).[20] This is probably one of those cases in which Lewis sees his own method in the writings of someone else.[21] Much more likely is the fact that Schaeffer combined elements (whether self-consciously or not) of the two methodologies of his two main mentors; J. Gresham Machen, and Cornelius Van Til. This would account for the significant elements from each in his own methodology, without forcing us to see in Schaeffer some sophisticated “verificationalism.” Schaeffer tends to be people and situational oriented so he simply did not concern himself with such inconsistencies.
15). Another key factor to consider is Schaeffer’s personal crisis of faith. This must be factored into any evaluation of his method. While Schaeffer clearly adopts the approach to apologetics of most presuppositionalists, in order to settle his own nagging doubts, he felt that he must have “good and sufficient reasons.” So it follows that Schaeffer would see that doubter would also need good and sufficient reasons to believe in the gospel.
16). Therefore, Francis Schaeffer cannot be a presuppositionalist even though he fancies himself to be one. For the consistent presuppositionalist, there is “no criteria of truth [which] may function either to confirm or disconfirm the presupposition that the God of the Bible exists.”[22] As Van Til insists “the only proof for the Christian position is that unless its truth is presupposed there is no possibility of proving anything at all. The actual state of affairs as preached by Christianity is the necessary foundation of proof itself.”[23] Yet, as we have seen, Schaeffer insists that “Christian faith is open to verification,”[24] and that understanding of the events of gospel history precede faith.[25] Knowledge precedes faith so that there is no existential leap in the dark. This approach to faith following the understanding, is impossible according to Van Til, who sees commitment to the Christian faith as essential to understanding gospel history. The following differences arise between Schaeffer and consistent presuppositionalists:
a). Schaeffer insists upon finding the point of tension between the unbeliever and his own non-Christian presuppositions.[26]
Christian apologetics do not start somewhere beyond the stars. They begin with man and what he knows about himself. When a man is lost, he is lost against all that there is, including what he is. 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.[27]
For Schaeffer, one must use the law of non-contradiction to find the point of tension.[28] “Absolutes imply antithesis” which Schaeffer relates to the law of non-contradiction.[29] Yet Van Til sees the implications of using the law of non-contradiction apart from presupposing that the God of the Bible exists, which is the very foundation for the use of logic in the first place. Van Til exhorts the apologist, “Christians should never appeal to the law of contradiction as something which determines what can or cannot be true.”[30] If one can use logic to determine whether or not God exists, then one cannot begin the knowing process by presupposition. Presuppositions of method and epistemology (i.e. “how do we know what we know?”) necessarily become basic, instead of presuppositions of content (i. e. “the God of the Bible exists”). For Van Til, and for Schaeffer at this point, the non-Christian lives below the line of despair because he has abandoned Christian presuppositions. To this we can certainly agree. But the question which arises is “just how do we show him this, if we are not to use the very law of logic that indicates self-contradiction and anti-thesis?”
b). Schaeffer is very aware of the criticism that the presuppositionalists will level at him at this point. He makes it quite clear that he does not wish to be considered an Aristotelian. He writes “rational thought as antithesis is not rooted in Aristotle, it is rooted in reality.”[31]
c). Schaeffer qualifies his views on the use of the law of contradiction.
First, the reality of the objective existence of God in antithesis to His not existing; second, the reality that God is a personal-infinite God to whom not all things are the same, in antithesis to an impersonal or limited God, or one who does differentiate in the areas of truth and morals; third, the reality of the objective existence of that which God created in contrast to what He did not create; fourth, that which people do or make or paint or think, etc., in contrast to what does not exist. In morals, antithesis rests upon what conforms to God’s character, in contrast to what opposes it.[32]
d). For Schaeffer, then, the law of contradiction, is essential in order for us to communicate the gospel to our age. “We should remember, however, that our responsibility is to communicate that those who hear the gospel will understand it. If we do not communicate clearly on the basis of antithesis, many will respond to their own interpretation of the Gospel.”[33]
17). Schaeffer everywhere assumes that the believer and the unbeliever have significant common ground. Van Til correctly locates this in the Image of God in man,[34] yet, he insists that human depravity has rendered humanity so hostile to the facts of the gospel, that in practice there is no common ground between believers and non-Christians.[35] For Schaeffer
in practice then, we do have a point for conversation, but this point is not properly spoken of as `neutral.' There are no neutral facts, for facts are God’s facts. However, there is common ground between the Christian and the non-Christian because regardless of a man’s system, he has to live in God’s world. 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.[36]
For Schaeffer, while there is no neutrality, there is common ground. If there is no common ground, there is nothing worth discussing. Communication of the gospel to [humanity] is a major concern for Schaeffer. “The problem which confronts us as we approach modern man today. . . is the problem of how to communicate the gospel so that it is understood.”[37]
18). Schaeffer’s use of coherence sounds very much like Van Til’s stress on systematic interpretation - i.e. things stand or fall in their relationship to one another.[38] Yet he consistently stresses objectivity of truth like Machen. “Unless we make completely clear that we are talking about objective truth when we say that Christianity is true and therefore accepting Christ as Savior is not just some form of upper story leap.”[39] Here, again, we may be merely seeing conflicting tendencies, as opposed to Lewis’ “verificationalism” assertion.
19. Schaeffer’s actual apologetic method in practice is quite different from Van Til. Van Til's two-step method is as follows:
a). We tell the unbeliever our presuppositions; what we believe, and the reasons we have for believing them.
b). We adopt the unbeliever’s presuppositions for the sake of argument. This involves listening, and taking the unbeliever seriously. We want to show him the presuppositions of his own position and we want to show him that his position is anti-Christianity. We work to point out the unclarity in his world-view, expose factual errors, expose unsound arguments, show the self-frustrating character of his world-view, and show the unbeliever that his problems stem from his desire to be autonomous.[40]
20). Schaeffer’s 3-step method is somewhat different.
a). “The existence of the universe and its form.”
b). “The distinctiveness of man.”
c). “You can relate these to a third thing, and that is the examination of the historicity of Scripture.”[41]
21). We can safely conclude from the above that there are significant differences between Schaeffer’s methodology and that of Cornelius Van Til. These differences are significant enough, that Van Til would very harshly criticize much of Schaeffer’s work.
22). It is my contention that Francis Schaeffer was an inconsistent evidentialist who thought (????) that he was a presuppositionalist. I agree with Reymond over against Morris who contends that Schaeffer was a consistent presuppositionalist. I disagree with Harper and John Frame, who argue that Schaeffer was a modified or inconsistent presuppositionalist. I also disagree with Gordon Lewis, who sees Schaeffer as a verificationalist. Schaeffer’s method was eclectic, which seems to fit the data and places greatest weight on the sources of Schaeffer’s thought. In the best possible light, Schaeffer is a cultural apologist. At worst he was a pragmatist, and certainly not a theological/philosophical apologist. As an apologist/evangelist, we can identify serious problems with the “it is true because it works” strain lurking around between the lines. Schaeffer tended to deal with individuals where he found them, where he was much more at home, and much more effective.
23). In order to keep perspective on the matter, the question as to whether or not Schaeffer was this or that can easily become a ridiculous matter. Does it really matter? Ultimately not. But there are some who while working through his published works, ask many of these same questions about the apologetic method. It may not really matter whether or not Schaeffer was or was not a presuppositionalist. But it does matter whether or not presuppositionalism is the Biblical method of apologetics to the exclusion to all other approaches (as presuppositionalists often claim). It does matter how we defend our faith. Just what do we mean when we say that Christianity is true? All of these questions arise when we work through the methodology of a particular individual. These questions can help us see the issues at stake, and force us to sharpen our weapons against unbelief. That is why asking whether or not Schaeffer was this, that or the other, helps us be better apologists.
_____________________________________
[1] See the discussion in: Bryan A. Follis, Truth and Love: The Apologetics of Francis Schaeffer (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2006), 31-59.
[2] These are: Thomas V. Morris, Francis Schaeffer's Apologetic: A Critique (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976), re-printed by Baker Book House (1987); Robert L. Reymond, The Justification of Knowledge (Nutley: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1976); and Gordon Lewis own book with a section on Schaeffer, Testing Christianity’s Truth Claims (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976). Lewis’s interpretation of Schaeffer is one of the most sophisticated and perhaps the most misleading.
[3] This issue is not helped by Schaeffer’s own attitude to such questions. As he was still living when these particular reviews were written, it would have been easy for him to make any necessary clarifications. Yet, in fairness to Schaeffer, Van Til, and other Reformed apologists were very critical of his work. It is my opinion that Schaeffer was just plain tired of the whole debate,deferring from getting involved in issues he would have considered to be a waste of time.
[4] This does not in anyway imply that a pastor cannot or should not be a good theologian, merely that Schaeffer was predominantly people oriented. See Follis, Truth and Love: The Apologetics of Francis Schaeffer, 134-174.
[5] From The God Who is There (TGWIT), in The Collected Works of Francis Schaeffer (CW), 113.
[6] TGWIT, in CW, 122.
[7] He Is There and He Is Not Silent, in CW, 326.
[8] TGWIT, in CW, 7.
[9] TGWIT, in CW, 65.
[10] TGWIT, in CW, 69-70.
[11] TGWIT, in CW, 153-54.
[12] See Lewis’s article in Reugsegger’s Reflections on Francis Schaeffer, 69-86. Schaeffer’s use of coherence as a test for truth also undoubtedly contributes to Lewis’s assessment.
[13] TGWIT, in CW, 135.
[14] TGWIT, in CW, 140-41.
[15] TGWIT, in CW, 165.
[16] I agree with what Schaeffer is trying to say, but the manner in which he says it is equally problematic.
[17] See Gordon Lewis’s critique of Morris’s approach, in “Schaeffer’s Apologetic Method,” 86-90. Note Schaeffer’s remarks in CW, 287. Schaeffer says “what we are talking about is the philosophic necessity, in the area of Being and existence, of the fact that God is there.”
[18] Reymond is perhaps the most cogent of all presuppositionalists and makes significant improvements over Van Til in terms of clarity. See his book, Justification of Knowledge. See too Dr. John Warwick Montgomery’s critical review of Reymond’s book in Faith Founded on Fact, 125-27.
[19] See Reymond, Justification of Knowledge, 141-47. Gordon Lewis is critical of Reymond’s treatment of Schaeffer because he feels Reymond fails to consider more than two methodologies for justifying truth claims. Those systems such as Carnell’s (especially his “third way of knowing”) which combine tests for truth are very attractive. Still, multiple tests for truth do not make a system stronger — is internal consistency always compatible with the fitting of external facts? What about the Trinity for example?
[20] See Lewis, “Schaeffer’s Apologetic Method,” 93.
[21] There can be no doubt as to whether or not this is Lewis’s method. See the introduction to Lewis’s work, Integrative Theology (Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Corporation, 1987). Lewis is describing his own methodology.
[22] Lewis, “Schaeffer’s Apologetic Method,” 73.
[23] Van Til, My Credo, 93.
[24] TGWIT, in CW, 65.
[25] TGWIT, in CW, 154.
[26] This distinction, evident in Schaeffer’s skilled use of the law of non-contradiction is his major and most effective apologetic weapon, the principle of “antithesis.”
[27] TGWIT, in CW, 133.
[28] The Law of non-Contradiction is defined as: “p cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect.” See Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy, s. v. "Laws of Thought, The Three.”
[29] TGWIT, in CW, 6-7.
[30] Cited in: Baird, “Schaeffer's Intellectual Roots,” 56. This is one of the most important and telling remarks Van Til will make about apologetics. It is taken from an unpublished class syllabus, and therefore Van Til may not be fully committed to, or later retracted this premise. If he really is saying what he appears to be saying, there is no possibility whatsoever of common ground, even communication, between a Christian and a non-Christian.
[31] TGWIT, in CW, 184.
[32] TGWIT, in CW, 184.
[33] TGWIT, in CW, 195
[34] Van Til, My Credo, 93.
[35] Van Til, My Credo, 92.
[36] TGWIT, in CW, 137-38.
[37] TGWIT, in CW, 145.
[38] “(L. cohaerere, `to adhere together,’ `to stick together,’ ` to be united’). 1. Connection by some common idea (principle, relationship, order, concept). 2. Following logically without any inconsistency or gaps. Logical congruity.” Cited from Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy, s. v. “coherence.”
[39] TGWIT, in CW, 156.
[40] John Frame, Class Notes, WSC.
[41] TGWIT, in CW, 182 (See also 178).