2 of 3

How did Schaeffer's experiences with controversies in the church affect his apologetic tactics?

Schaeffer, I argued in the book, is a pastor—an evangelist—who develops apologetics as a means of reaching people. So his apologetics aren't academically driven or designed. He once said that if he had an hour with a complete stranger on a train or on a boat, he would spend 50 minutes asking them questions, drawing them out as to what they believed, showing the inconsistencies of their views. And in the last 10 to 15 minutes, presenting the gospel.

What are some misconceptions about Schaeffer and his apologetics?

I think there are misconceptions on two sides. First, there are those who hero-worship the man, the philosophy and apologetics. For them, the trilogy is the final word: analytically take the arguments, repeat the arguments, and you win the case. Some of the Schaeffer fans, when they come to conferences, everything has been captured in 1968, and the approach is almost identical. That doesn't do justice to the man in the sense that his rationality was a part of who he was and so his argumentation must be taken alongside his spirituality, his emphasis on the Holy Spirit, his emphasis on prayer, his emphasis on real love for the person. So that's one misconception—to see him as this sort of hand-to-hand combat fighter.

The other misconception would be those who see him almost in reverse—who dislike him because of his rationality, because of his commitment to inerrancy. They see him as a rationalist and someone who is trapped in modernism. They see his arguments and apologetics as out-of-date and unhelpful.

What is helpful about his ministry to Christians today?

His real commitment to the Bible as the Word of God, as being true, but his realization that truth, which is objective, is subjectively experienced, and each person's life story will be different, and each person is important and unique in the eyes of God. One of his phrases he often used was that "nobody is less than zero," meaning that even if a person isn't converted, they still have dignity and value because they're made in the image of God.

I think if Christians held to that approach, showing the truth of Christ, we would have people more willing to listen. We seem to fall in one of two extremes. We either give up on the truth and become totally relational—almost in a sort of vague spirituality without reference to the Cross and the Scriptures—or else we go the other route and philosophize and become entrenched and antagonistic with the culture wars and things like that. Schaeffer keeps the truth, unapologetically, but cares for people, and that shows in how he handles them. I think that's the model for us at local churches where we can practice community, show love, and then share the truth.

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

May 2007, Vol. 51, No. 5