A Review of "Truth with Love" by Brian A. Folis

Truth with Love: The Apologetics of Francis Schaeffer by Brian A. Folis (Crossway Books, 2006)

Having read nine of Francis Schaeffer's books and listened to some L'Abri tapes, this book was naturally attractive to me. I was further impressed by the sharp cover design and the great endorsements it has received. I must say that the book met my high expectations. This is one of the most engaging and dynamic books I've read in quite some time.

The book seems to be wrapped up in three main pursuits: 1) Outlining Schaeffer's approach, 2) Outlining and responding to critiques of Schaeffer and 3) Reflecting on Schaeffer's methods and suggesting how to adapt them to our present day.

For the first two pursuits, the author does a fantastic job on outlining the thought of Calvin and later Reformed theologians on apologetics and reason. This was very important so that the reader will be better equipped to understand where Schaeffer (and his detractors) are coming from. He then proceeds to outline Schaeffer's approach, and afterwards he has some frank and helpful interaction with Schaeffer's critics. As this book states, Schaeffer has been criticized for being too rationalistic, not rational enough, too presuppositional, and not presuppositional enough. The author fairly represents these critiques and provides some very convincing responses. Many critiques of Schaffer's work involve ignorance of the full range of Schaeffer's work. Others involved taking for granted (or ignoring) what Schaeffer's mission and purpose really was. The clear lesson is that you can't understand someone if you do not understand the whole range of his work.

Many of the critiques reviewed seem to be clearly wrong and baseless, such as those from Clark Pinnock. The author still deals with them sensitively. However, the author shows a remarkable deal of care in regard to the controversy with Van Til. The author is clear that Schaeffer is not strictly speaking a presuppositionalist. Further, he shows that Schaeffer was eclectic, drawing both on Princeton evidentialism and Van Tilian presuppositionalism, though strictly speaking, he was not a follower of either. Schaeffer was not intent on producing an apologetical system. He was primarily an evangelist at heart and he saw apologetics as means to an end and presuppositions, not as axioms, but as verifiable (or falsifiable) basic ideas. This put him at odds with Van Til, though they both respected each other a great deal.

A discussion of Schaeffer's apologetic that focused only on the controversies with other Christians would be quite useless, though I must say the author did a fine job of that part of the book. To Schaeffer, apologetics is ultimately about evangelism. His ministry ultimately revolved around community, prayer, and the final apologetic--love. Hence, "the final apologetic" is the heading of the concluding chapter, which brings us to the last pursuit of the book. I must say that this section is packed with a few too many semi-related things, and is sort of overwhelming, but I don't want to detract from its value! This section is perhaps the most compelling part of the book. I found it to contain excellent thoughts and helpful advise. It is ultimately concerned with reflecting on things of utmost importance to Schaeffer such as love, community, prayer, etc. It also discusses the relevance of Schaeffer's approach in our day, the progression from modernism to post-modernism, the emerging movement, etc. However, it is ultimately concerned with how we can apply and revise what we learn from Schaeffer so it has an impact today.

There is so much written by and about Francis Schaeffer that it is hard to believe that this book could provide something meaningful, let alone valuable. But Brian Follis has done a fine job, and I believe he has accomplished just that! I highly recommend that you get this book and read it if you have any sort of interest in the apologetics of Francis Schaeffer. And if you don't already have that interest, who knows? This book may spark a new interest in you!

Are You Weeping?

Francis Schaeffer was an American pastor who was called to work for the Lord in a unique way. He want to Switzerland in the 1950's and eventually formed a mission called "L'Abri". That mission's work was a living demonstration to many people that the infinite-personal triune God of Scripture exists. Many young people, who were brushed aside by their Christian teachers, parents, etc., found in L'Abri a place where they would be listened to. A place where they could hear something beyond the "patt answers" they were used to hearing. A place where they were treated with dignity due to every human, even if they weren't "all together". And the hundreds of people who visited L'Abri heard the Biblical gospel faithfully presented.

Francis was remarkable in a number of ways. One of things that really stood out was this: He was very intellectual. But he never treated Christian apologetics as a mere intellectual exercise. His goal was not to form an apologetical system or win debates, but rather to reach out to people. He had immense care for the people he talked to. He listened to them and he made great effort to relate to them. He wept for the youth who put their hopes in drugs, eastern religion, etc. during the 1960's. If you watch a video where he is teaching a lecture or relating a story, there is no hiding it. He face shows it all. As he talks about his conversations with youths whose hopes have been shattered, you can see the pain that he felt for them. It literally choked him up. When he told of despair, he wasn't talking about statistics but about real living people made in the image of God. To Schaeffer there were no "little" or "insignificant" people.

One individual recounts his college encounter with Francis Schaeffer: "He was a small man—barely five feet in his knickers, knee socks, and ballooning white shirts. For two weeks, first as a freshman and then again as a senior, I sat in my assigned seat at Wheaton College's chapel and heard him cry. He was the evangelical conscience at the end of the 20th century, weeping over a world that most of his peers dismissed as not worth saving, except to rescue a few souls in the doomed planet's waning hours. While Hal Lindsey was disseminating an exit strategy in The Late Great Planet Earth, Francis Schaeffer was trying to understand and care for people still trapped on the planet in The God Who Is There."

If we want to be evangelists, apologists, and ambassdors for Christ, we need to think long and hard as to whether we love the unsaved enough. If we love them, why aren't we weeping over them? If their fate can't even bring a tear to our eye, how can we in all seriousness feel the urgency to help them? The other difficulty is that we can get so disturbed by sin that we become ANGRY instead of being COMPASSIONATE. Righteous anger has its proper place, but most of them time it seems to be unproductive anger, often anger that gets us into trouble or leads us to treat others poorly. We see all sorts of perversions and sin around us. It greatly troubles us, and it should! But do we ever truly weep for the people? Do we ever feel sorrow for individuals instead of merely getting angry about where our country is headed in an abstract sort of way?

Jeremiah was known as the "weeping prophet". Anyone who could write a book named "Lamentations" knows something of weeping. Jesus wept, and not only for people's sin but for the sorrow of death, etc. Many men of God throughout history (not just Francis Schaeffer) have lamented and weeped for the sins (and the fate) of the people around them. This has forced me to stop and think. Do I have this sort of compassion? I think the conservative evangelical Christian church is often doing more shouting than weeping right now. Here's a thought: If our advocacy of "Christian values" within the political and cultural arenas is so focused on general rhetoric against abstract "groups" that we can't think of and weep over SPECIFIC individuals who are tasting the bitter despair caused by their sin, we are way off base. Our "fight" for Christian values will never be credible until we posses a compassionate sorrow for those who are serving sin. And by that I mean the real sorrow which comes from one who has empathy, not a proud mocking sort of disgust.

It is one thing to frown upon other people's sin, but it is another thing entirely to compassionately feel (as much as is possible) the weight of another person's sin.

Christian Apologetics Podcast Reviews

I listen to a variety of podcasts pertaining to Christian apologetics, so I thought I'd put together a few reviews. Perhaps the people running them may read this feedback and find it useful, who knows?

The Dividing Line: I listened to this web cast long before I even knew what a podcast was. Consequently, after a hiatus from listening to the Dividing Line, I was very glad to see that they now have a podcast. I really must congratulate James in the way his show has really prospered. It maintains a unique sense of consistency and it is really quite informative. I'd say it is probably one of the best Christian apologetics podcasts out there, at least out of what I've seen so far. James pulls no punches and has a great deal of passion about the subjects he covers, but he also maintains a very scholarly and level-headed composure on the show. He really demonstrates a willingness to work through issues and interact with people on a very mature and scholarly level. James focuses mainly on Textual Criticism, Islam, Mormonism, and issues pertaining to Reformed theology. He frequently debates people and interacts with their material. The material James presents can be long-winded, but not in the murky sense. It is always presented in a cogent and effective manner. The emphasis on Textual Criticism and high-level surveys of Reformed Theology may make this show slightly out of the "area of interest" in a person just looking for general apologetics info, but for the serious individual who is commited to study, it is great!

The Narrow Mind: This podcast is perhaps more general than The Dividing Line. While it is still focused on apologetics, it covers a broader range of issues, often getting into eschatology, etc. A good deal of the content tends to do with debating with atheists and talking about Reformed Theology. The show has a great deal of variety and is very lively. It can be very fascinating and it has a great deal of dedicated listeners. Gene if a Reformed Baptist pastor and follows the apologetical style of Greg Bahsen. Gene gets some real interesting characters (or "cases"?) on his show. Particularly interesting was the time he had Dan Corner on the show and another time when he had a very far-out "Black Supremisist" sort of person online. Despite the positives, I do have some complaints about The Narrow Mind. While I like this show in many ways and find it stimulating, some aspects of the show are disheartening. I think the way some guests are handled only serves to reinforce certain stereotypes as to what evangelical Christians are like. I find some of the rhetoric to be rather harsh and also the sarcasm/satire sometimes become a bit excessive. I appreciate Gene's stand for the truth and I also understand that satire/sarcasm have their proper place, but the show is sometimes conducted puts me in the position where I can't recommend it without qualification. I think things could be done in a more charitable fashion. Don't get me wrong, there really is much that is very good about this show and I don't want my criticism of it to detract from that.

Faith and Reason: This is a radio show in Idaho run by Matt Slick. It is also available as a podcast and is run in conjunction with CARM (Christian Apologetics Research Ministries). Matt does a fine job of covering a number of different subjects and discusing them rationally and in a way that is faithful to the Scriptures. Matt gets all sorts of different callers and there really is a great deal of interaction and variety in the shows. I think he earns the respect that his callers give him, even those who disagree with him. He also has a tremendous amount of zeal and thirst for new ideas, new input, and reaching out in new areas. Sometimes the show gets a bit tedious when Matt either continues very long on one subject (you could call it a 'rant') or sometimes bringing up an interesting subject but then getting sidetracked by something else, leaving his listeners hanging! And his jokes get a bit corny sometimes (and repeated ad nauseum). That being said, Matt does a find job of intellectually defending the faith and doing it in a very charitable and patient way. Much can be learned in listening to how Matt interacts with people. Matt is a great example of how to remain friendly and charitable while still standing strong for the truth. His show is high quality just like his website

All three of these radio shows have the following: frequent guests, interesting topics, and hosts who are theologically sound and knowledgable. They have their own strong points and weak points. Two of them I can recommend without qualification (Faith&Reason and The Dividing Line). One I can recommend with one fairly important qualification (The Narrow Mind). It is wonderful to think that such shows exist with hosts that are providing a solid basis for the Christian faith.

On Reformed Apologist "Homeboy" T-Shirts

You may have seen the "Cornelius Van Til is my Homeboy" or "Gordon H. Clark is my Homeboy" t-shirts.

Upon examining this new trend, I see a great deal of fun and creativity in it. However, of all the people I may conceive as being "homeboyish", Cornelius and Gordon don't necessarily make the grade. They are good apologists, but evidentially (or maybe presuppositionally) they are not the "hip" type.

Whatever criticisms about his method you may have, you must admit that nobody looked quite as transcedental as as Francis Schaeffer.

So, I unveil a new t-shirt design which will rival the aforementioned ones.

If Someone Should Rise From the Dead

In Luke 16 we see a striking account of a poor man named Lazarus and a rich man. Part of this account contains a dialog between Abraham and the rich man, which is covered in Luke 16:24. This is a simplified presentation of what was said:

Rich Man - "Then I beg you, father, to send [Lazarus] to my father's house—for I have five brothers —so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.'"
Abraham - "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them."
Rich Man - "No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent."
Abraham - "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead."

On a surface level, without knowing what the Bible teaches elsewhere, it would be easy to discount what Abraham says here as not corresponding with reality. What the Rich Man says in this dialog sounds quite plausible. Certainly, we could assume, there would be a higher probability that the Rich Man's brothers would repent if they could witness a in-person resurrection.

However, there is one glaring error that caused the Rich Man to say what he did and it is an error that often plauges our thinking too. The Rich Man falsely assumed that his brothers minds were neutral, and that the basic problem is that they merely haven't been exposed to persuasive enough evidence yet. However, this couldn't be further from the truth. The Rich Man's brothers were exposed to the Word of God and, as Jews, they had more than sufficient revelation to know their responsibilities before God. Their basic problem was rebellion not a lack of revelation.

This same problem is in full force today. I certainly don't want to discount the importance or value of evidence for the Christian faith, but we need be more aware of the fact that the unbelieving mind filters all evidence through a filter, which is most pronouncedly affected by the fallen, sinful human condition. Without the work of the Holy Spirit, even the most convincing evidence will fall short of persuading anyone. And we should get serious about giving some attention on our part to the presuppositions/worldviews of those we are encountering, instead of just focusing on hurling evidence at people.

The truth is that the human mind is prone to reject ALL evidence that would be contrary to its innermost presuppositions. This means that no evidence would be sufficient to change their mind in and of itself. This was made crystal clear in a debate I once listened to. If I remember correctly It was between a Christian (Douglas Wilson) and an Athiest (Dan Barker). At one point the Christian asked what evidence would be sufficient to persaude him that God exists. By my recollection, the Athiest presented a very unusual scenario where God would audibly speak, something would be levitated and rotated in the air, and a number of other remarkable things. At that point through further cross examination, the Christian was able to establish that even then, with such remarkable and unquestionablly abnormal circumstances, the Athiest would still be unwilling and/or unable to conclusively determine whether it was God or not. Why? Because there would be a myriad of other explanations and justifications that could be offered (what if it was UFOs pretending to be God, a hallucenation, etc. etc.). We are incapable of totally objective thoughts, the human mind always falls back to certain deep seated presuppositions that determine how we interpret the evidence. And those who despise God will find countless other possible explanations for just about anything they encounter.

What does this mean practically in our witness and apologetics for the truth?

1. God saves and God alone. Our evidence can't do it directly . Our preaching can't do it directly. Our love/good works can't do it directly. All these are necessary and are part what a faithful Christian does, but if the Holy Spirit is not working inwardly while we are working outwardly, nothing will happen. This does not eliminate the need for our actions and our words, but it puts what we do in a proper context.

2. There are epistemological (the study of knowledge, ie. how one knows things) issues that need to be addressed when discussing the plausability of the Christian faith. If we skip this discussion and plunge into evidence, the discussion is likely to go around in circles ever missing the core issue (not evidence in and of itself, but how the evidence is handled).

3. Everyone has many presuppositions, and we should aim at challenging unbelievers most basic ones. Some presuppositions are more basic than others. The most basic ones determine the less basic ones. You can spend years trying to persaude someone to change one of their non-core presuppositions, and you may even succeed. But that won't change their overall outlook. Only by having changed inner/core pressuppositions will one have correct non-basic presuppositions. So we should seek ways to examine some of those basic presuppositions and be able to show inconsistencies in them. For example, if you were to persaude someone that there was a global flood some time in history, but they remain commited to a materialistic worldview (ie. believing that there is nothing immaterial or "spiritual"), you have accomplished very little. It may be lending credence to God's Word, but as long as they exclude the possibility of the supernatural, they will likely find another explanation for it and certainly won't accept God's Word regarding what happened.

4. Because God saves and God saves alone, ultimately we have a great consolation when we seem to "fail" in reaching others. We certainly should do our best to present God's ways in a coherent and convincing way. We certainly should try to remove all obstacles that prevent us from relating and communicating with those we come into contact to. We certainly should look inwardly and examine our hearts to make sure our relations with others are exemplifying the fruit of the Spirit. However, the fact that someone rejects what we say or continues in their unbelief does not mean that we have done a poor job. If the masses were not persuaded by Jesus and His miracles, we can't expect any more of a positive response than He did. However, where God opens the door for it, there is a great opportunity out there to be used of God in sharing His gospel and engaging in conversation for His glory and His kindom.

Alan Watts on the Gaze of the Christian God

I'm reading a book by Alan Watts, "The Book". He was famous for doing a lot to bridge the gap between the new mysticism (Western counterculture) and the old mysticism (Eastern philosophy/religion).

As I read this book, I'm acutely aware that as a Christian I do not accept his conclusions and in fact find a number of them quite bizarre and off-the-wall. His view of "god" and our existence can not explain reality as it really is. I'm reading this book mainly because I like to know
something about the things I critique.

As I've been reading through the book, I found a statement of his that really jumped out of the page. While I neither agree with his overarching thesis nor his developing argument, something about this statement made me say "WOW":

"The image of God as a personal Being, somehow 'outside' or other than the world, had the merit of letting us feel that life is based on intelligence, that the laws of nature are everywhere consistent in that they proceed from one ruler, and that we could let our imaginations go to the limit in conceiving the sublime qualities of this supreme and perfect Being. The image also gave everyone a sense of importance and meaning. For this God is directly aware of every tiniest fragment of dust and vibration of energy, since it is just his awareness of it that enables it to be. This awareness is also love and, for angels and men at least, he has planned an everlasting life of the purest bliss which is to begin at the end of mortal time. But of course there are strings attached to this reward, and those who purposely and relentlessly deny or disobey the divine will must spend eternity in agonies as intense as the bliss of good and faithful subjects.

The problem of this image of God was that it became too much of a good thing. Children working on their desks in school are almost always put off when even a kindly and respected teacher watches over their shoulders. How much more disconcerting to realize that each single deed, thought, and feeling is watched by the Teachers of teachers, that nowhere on earth or in heaven is there any
hiding-place from that Eye which sees all and judges all."

For all his faults, there are two things in this excerpt that Alan gets right on the money:

1. He identifies (at least as a concession) that the Christian view of God is the foundation for importance, meaning in life, and consistency in the laws of nature.

2. He identifies why the unbeliever does not like the Christian concept of God, He's far too all-knowing, far too holy and just, etc. Humans who rebel against the "Teachers of teachers" can not hide from the eye of God, so naturally they would much rather want no God, or at least a "god" who can be fooled and avoided.

Indeed there is no "hiding place" for those who continue to defy the God who created them.
Many people innately know that a personal God is the very foundation for the things that they depend upon in their life, and yet they still rebel against Him and deny His existence simply because they come to the conclusion that Alan Watts reached: It is "disconcerting to realize that each single deed, thought, and feeling is watched by the Teachers of teachers". I agree that it is disconcerting to our independent spirit to know that God is omnipresent and omnipotent. Unfortunately, though, denying reality does not evade the necessity of dealing with it.