The following is part of a summary/review that I did recently for a Philosophy course.
In Truth with Love: The Apologetics of Francis Schaeffer, Bryan A. Follis does a thorough job
of giving a historical understanding to the life and work of Francis Schaeffer.
He does so by introducing Schaeffer in context and then giving a historical overview
of Church History, which sets up Schaeffer. Follis specifically focuses his
attention on Calvin and the Reformed tradition because Schaeffer was a man greatly influenced by the Reformed tradition.
Although recognized as an apologist, Follis points to
Schaeffer’s own life in showing that he considered himself more of an
evangelist. In fact he directly linked apologetics with evangelism. For
Schaeffer the purpose and reason behind apologetics was to see people embrace
Jesus as Lord.
Follis took the core of Schaeffer’s life and put it on
display in a way that he would have wanted. For instance showing that Schaeffer
firmly believed that one must meet people in terms of where they are
spiritually. Once meeting them he held that knowledge of understanding was
needed prior to salvation. Follis’ view of Schaeffer is of an apologists
who truly cared for the individual and seeing them follow Jesus through love,
not based on some argument in a system of logic. It cannot be said enough and
Follis continued to return to the point that Schaeffer operated on a principle
of love, which made his apologetics successful because of his focus on the
individual.
In order to give a full view of the life and ministry of
Schaeffer, Follis also directly deals with those critical of him. Many
mistakenly refer to Schaeffer as pre-suppositional apologists, which Follis
argues is not the case, but also points out that at times he would borrow from
different types of apologist if it would speak to the individual or audience
that he was engaging in dialogue. Often times Schaeffer was also accused of
being a rationalist. The author gives good reason that in one thinking this of
Schaeffer is simply an inadequate read of him.
It is clear in the end that Follis is a fan of Schaeffer as
there are many instances in his analysis of him where it comes across as he is
giving a complete defense for Schaeffer. Many times he easily writes off those
that are critical of Schaeffer, without giving them much of a hearing. Follis
takes time to mention the son of Schaeffer and shift much of the blame to him
for those critical of his father, but does not present substantial evidence for
this.
In spite of this, Follis accomplishes his goal of presenting
Francis Schaeffer as an evangelist who merely uses apologetics in order to
reach his audience with a message of love that would hopefully draw them to
Jesus. I agree with Follis’ assessment that the apologetics of Schaeffer are
still vibrant and relevant for today’s audience. Love between Christians
has always been the true mark of a believer and it would serve the church well
if we all operated under the principle of love as Schaeffer did.
No comments:
Post a Comment