The Francis Schaeffer Trilogy

[Josheb]

The Francis Schaeffer Trilogy

As the cover of the book indicates, this book was originally published as three separate, different books. Those books are, "The God Who is There," "Escape from Reason," and "He is There and He is Not Silent." I read the last book of the trilogy first, and I read it before I was a Christian. It was instrumental in my later coming to Christ oor, rather, I might say God used that book to bring me to His Son.

The book recounts the history of philosophy, art, and music to chronicle from the early days of the Church up through the influences that were contemporary when he wrote the books. One of the benefits of the books is that it provides a survey of history and philosophy, however, Schaeffer spends little time expounding on any one philosopher's views and the particular challenges of their day so the book will not provide that sort of information to the reader. Schaeffer's commentary is primarily anecdotal. His chief goal was two-fold: 1) help the (Evangelical) Church better understand how they find themselves in the situation where society is increasingly divided and the Church less influential, and 2) evangelistic; there is a case for the intellectual integrity of Christianity. Schaeffer did not consider himself a theologian. He considered himself an evangelist.

Theologian or evangelist, the book is a difficult read. The book is written as if he expects the reader to know who and what he's talking about (and most don't). I didn't. The book spurred me on to study philosophy in college. Despite the challenges reading the book if you don't have an understanding of philosophy or history, the book recounts how western society has gradually moved away from the belief reason and revelation are compatible to the belief among non-theists that reason alone is the sole means of knowing anything of value. There was a time when everyone, even if they were atheist or a member of some other religion, understood the Judeo-Christian worldview and operated as if that view were correct. That gradually changed and the rate of change increased significantly in the 20th century. By the time of the late 1960s, when the books were originally written western society was in chaos. Academia, politics, philosophy, art, and other institutions of western society lacked any common ground and no foundation upon which any common ground could be established.

The Church was largely to blame.

Because the Church did not respond to the gradual departure from the Judeo-Christian worldview with an outspoken and unified voice the Church became marginalized in the marketplace of ideas. In the gospel the Church has all the answers to humanity's inquiries and Christianity provides the foundation for a cohesive understanding of all life's experiences, including those found in the arts and those found in science. As an apologetic, the book is, therefore, also an exhortation and indictment of the Church. The Church needs to speak up! The world is hungry, thirsty, and dying and due to various influences within Christianity, not just those outside it, we're not doing what we should be doing.

The original books were instrumental in rekindling revival, particularly in America. The evangelical Church awoke and began to become more involved in society and it did so in a variety of institutions, most prominently in politics. Organizations like the Moral Majority, The Family Research Council, and even Focus on the Family are direct results of Schaeffer's influence. I know brick and mortar Christian bookstores are largely a thing of the past, but I used to walk into the books stores and go to the theology and "Christian Life" sections and peruse the reference pages of randomly selected books. Nearly everyone in Protestantism (and some in RCCism) was influenced by Schaeffer. Rare was the book that did not mention his works. He also became a source of rancor among leftist/Marxist-influenced journalists, with hit pieces written about his being the fomenter of what is nowadays misguidedly called "Christian nationalism." Schaeffer was a dangerous man with dangerous ideas, and he needed to be stopped. His influence in the last half of the last century cannot be underestimated. Schaeffer is still mentioned in "best of" lists of Christian books, and he's been dead for 40 years.

Some of the things I, personally, found flawed are the lack of depth covering the philosophers and artists he mentions. The 1800s, for example, were a particularly heady time with folks like Darwin, Marx, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Darby, and Spurgeon (and many others) having enormous voices. It's difficult to do any one of them justice in a book as short as those of the trilogy so the brevity is understandable, but the resulting lack of depth is a valid complaint. Schaeffer also has a unique view of natural law. Some Christians reject the premise outright. I don't. But neither do I wholly accept Schaeffer's view. I won't spoil the matter. I'll encourage everyone to read the book and decide for themselves. Schaeffer was also influenced by Cornelius Van Til's presuppositionalism and C. S. Lewis' Anglican sensibilities. Schaeffer had been ordained as a Presbyterian, although he considered himself non-denominational. As a consequence, classic apologetics and evidential apologetics take a back seat to his presuppositional approach and many among the Reform-minded reader may find his theology somewhat diluted. Reading his other works, such as "Genesis in Time and Space" will assuage those views. There is also some repetition because the three individual books covered some of the same territory, both historically and philosophically. I'm not sure, but I think that might be why the trilogy is about 100 pages shorter than the three individual books combined. Some editing was done with the trilogy. An alternative to reading the trilogy, for those who'd like the "short version," would be the last of the three books published, "He is There and He is Not Silent." Others, like Alvin Plantinga and Lesslie Newbigin, wrote on many of the same subjects and concerns. Nancy Pearcey was a protégé of Schaeffer's and has picked up where he left off amazingly (everything she writes should be read). Carl Trueman is covering more contemporary conditions in the same tradition.




Ultimately, Schaeffer wanted to help Christians develop a Christian worldview that could speak to every concern of human existence, one couched in the truth of scripture. The book serves that purpose well. Personally, next to the Bible, I think Schaeffer's trilogy and J. I. Packer's "Knowing God" should be read by every Christian.

 

[makesends]

The Francis Schaeffer Trilogy

As the cover of the book indicates, this book was originally published as three separate, different books. Those books are, "The God Who is There," "Escape from Reason," and "He is There and He is Not Silent." I read the last book of the trilogy first, and I read it before I was a Christian. It was instrumental in my later coming to Christ oor, rather, I might say God used that book to bring me to His Son.

The book recounts the history of philosophy, art, and music to chronicle from the early days of the Church up through the influences that were contemporary when he wrote the books. One of the benefits of the books is that it provides a survey of history and philosophy, however, Schaeffer spends little time expounding on any one philosopher's views and the particular challenges of their day so the book will not provide that sort of information to the reader. Schaeffer's commentary is primarily anecdotal. His chief goal was two-fold: 1) help the (Evangelical) Church better understand how they find themselves in the situation where society is increasingly divided and the Church less influential, and 2) evangelistic; there is a case for the intellectual integrity of Christianity. Schaeffer did not consider himself a theologian. He considered himself an evangelist.

Theologian or evangelist, the book is a difficult read. The book is written as if he expects the reader to know who and what he's talking about (and most don't). I didn't. The book spurred me on to study philosophy in college. Despite the challenges reading the book if you don't have an understanding of philosophy or history, the book recounts how western society has gradually moved away from the belief reason and revelation are compatible to the belief reason alone is the sole means of knowing anything of value. There was a time when everyone, even if they were atheist or a member of some other religion, understood the Judeo-Christian worldview and operated as if that view were correct. That gradually changed and the rate of change increased significantly in the 20th century. By the time of the late 1960s, when the books were originally written western society was in chaos. Academia, politics, philosophy, art, and other institutions of western society lacked any common ground and no foundation upon which any common ground could be established.

The Church was largely to blame.

Because the Church did not respond to the gradual departure from the Judeo-Christian worldview with an outspoken and unified voice the Church became marginalized in the marketplace of ideas. In the gospel the Church has all the answers to humanity's inquiries and Christianity provides the foundation for a cohesive understanding of all life's experiences, including those found in the arts and those found in science. As an apologetic, the book is, therefore, also an exhortation and indictment of the Church. The Church needs to speak up! The world is hungry, thirsty, and dying and due to various influences within Christianity, not just those outside it, we're not doing what we should be doing.

The original books were instrumental in rekindling revival, particularly in America. The evangelical Church awoke and began to become more involved in society and it did so in a variety of institutions, most prominently in politics. Organizations like the Moral Majority, The Family Research Council, and even Focus on the Family are direct results of Schaeffer's influence. I know brick and mortar Christian bookstores are largely a thing of the past, but I used to walk into the books stores and go to the theology and "Christian Life" sections and peruse the reference pages of randomly selected books. Nearly everyone in Protestantism (and some in RCCism) was influenced by Schaeffer. Rare was the book that did not mention his works. He also became a source of rancor among leftist/Marxist-influenced journalists, with hit pieces written about his being the fomenter of what is nowadays misguidedly called "Christian nationalism." Schaeffer was a dangerous man with dangerous ideas, and he needed to be stopped. His influence in the last half of the last century cannot be underestimated. Schaeffer is still mentioned in "best of" lists of Christian books, and he's been dead for 40 years.

Some of the things I, personally, found flawed are the lack of depth covering the philosophers and artists he mentions. The 1800s, for example, were a particularly heady time with folks like Darwin, Marx, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Darby, and Spurgeon (and many others) having enormous voices. It's difficult to do any one of them justice in a book as short as those of the trilogy so the brevity is understandable, but the resulting lack of depth is a valid complaint. Schaeffer also has a unique view of natural law. Some Christians reject the premise outright. I don't. But neither do I wholly accept Schaeffer's view. I won't spoil the matter. I'll encourage everyone to read the book and decide for themselves. Schaeffer was also influenced by Cornelius Van Til's presuppositionalism and C. S. Lewis' Anglican sensibilities. Schaeffer had been ordained as a Presbyterian, although he considered himself non-denominational. As a consequence, classic apologetics and evidential apologetics take a back seat to his presuppositional approach and many among the Reform-minded reader may find his theology somewhat diluted. Reading his other works, such as "Genesis in Time and Space" will assuage those views. There is also some repetition because the three individual books covered some of the same territory, both historically and philosophically. I'm not sure, but I think that might be why the trilogy is about 100 pages shorter than the three individual books combined. Some editing was done with the trilogy. An alternative to reading the trilogy, for those who'd like the "short version," would be the last of the three books published, "He is There and He is Not Silent." Others, like Alvin Plantinga and Lesslie Newbigin, wrote on many of the same subjects and concerns. Nancy Pearcey was a protégé of Schaeffer's and has picked up where he left off amazingly (everything she writes should be read). Carl Trueman is covering more contemporary conditions in the same tradition.




Ultimately, Schaeffer wanted to help Christians develop a Christian worldview that could speak to every concern of human existence, one couched in the truth of scripture. The book serves that purpose well. Personally, next to the Bible, I think Schaeffer's trilogy and J. I. Packer's "Knowing God" should be read by every Christian.

At your suggestion, I ordered the trilogy, and have begun to read it. It is certainly not for 5 minute per sitting reading.

One difference (but I haven't gotten far) I see is with what you have described as, "[Shaeffer's] book recounts how western society has gradually moved away from the belief reason and revelation are compatible to the belief reason alone is the sole means of knowing anything of value." I see the following, and, not that he doesn't show what you said as one of the stages, (and maybe he does show that as the final stage), but: What I have found him describing current thought is that the world in general, to include the church, has migrated from absolutism of a sort and confidence in reason by use of absolutes, to Kierkegaard's kind of "leap of faith" thinking, and relativism. In other words, I haven't seen him showing man as having migrated to the belief that "reason alone is the sole means...", but that, rather, anything of value is found in how one feels about that thing.

So far, in my read, I'm seeing him agree with Sproul's (and some few others') decrying of Christianity's abandonment of reason. (Though not at all denying the reliability of revelation, (at least, in God's word).)

As you might imagine, this is something near and dear to me. Christianity's doctrine, and in particular, the Gospel, if true, has to make sense —and if not to me, at least we can count on it, that it IS logical regardless.

 

[Josheb]

At your suggestion, I ordered the trilogy, and have begun to read it. It is certainly not for 5 minute per sitting reading.

One difference (but I haven't gotten far) I see is with what you have described as, "[Shaeffer's] book recounts how western society has gradually moved away from the belief reason and revelation are compatible to the belief reason alone is the sole means of knowing anything of value." I see the following, and, not that he doesn't show what you said as one of the stages, (and maybe he does show that as the final stage), but: What I have found him describing current thought is that the world in general, to include the church, has migrated from absolutism of a sort and confidence in reason by use of absolutes, to Kierkegaard's kind of "leap of faith" thinking, and relativism. In other words, I haven't seen him showing man as having migrated to the belief that "reason alone is the sole means...", but that, rather, anything of value is found in how one feels about that thing.

Thanks.

I have edited my review to say, "...among non-theists that reason alone..." That was misleading. Christians and those of other theistic religions continue to see faith and revelation as valid epistemological sources. One of the Appendixes further articulates the proper manner of understanding the proverbial leap of faith (the one about the hikers in the Alps). It's important because "leap oof faith" is drastically misunderstood and believed to be anti-reason or anti-science when it is not. Additionally, while I understand your use of "absolutism," the better word may be "universal," because even those who do not subscribe to Christianity universally held to the Judeo-Christian ethic simply as a matter of it being the prevailing point of view. Engels, or Sartre, for examples, may not have been Christians but they acted like it. You'll find, as more of the book is read, Schaeffer writes about how those couched in competing perspectives borrowed capital from Christianity without acknowledging it. As far as Kierkegaard goes, he often gets a bad rap among Christians but he was simply trying to address a very persist and common problem in Christendom, namely the hypocrisy between what is preached and what is practiced. He woke up in Copenhagen one morning (or whatever city he was in at the time) and wondered how it is everyone can go to church, claim their Christians, and act like hedonists celebrating Bacchanalia every day. He assumed universals. He was competing against ideas from guys like Hegel, who took the exact opposite approach, assuming skepticism and the absence of any presuppositional truth, viewing truth as an ever-evolving matter. Hegel lived through the French Revolution and Kierkegaard was an infant when the Napoleonic Wars ended. Reason was supposed to defeated faith, but the bloodbath of the French Revolution and the little man's tyranny proved reason was not all it was stacked up to be. Where does that leave humanity? Faith and reason both lead to tyranny. Keep in mind the Restoration Movement had begun (profiteering off the earlier revivalism of Whitefield and Wesley). The world was going to end any minute (most of the Restoration Movement sects were apocalyptic) and by the middle of the century the US was waging a civil war where church-going southerners insanely went out to watch the battles (thinking the war would be short-lived) while awaiting Jesus' return.

Of course, Schaeffer doesn't dive into any of what I just said with that much depth, but that's what was going on. It was Schaeffer who prompted me to study history and philosophy. I even changed my major (that only lasted a year ) because I loved the studies. That paragraph above covered only about fifty years. Schaeffer is covering two centuries, seven if we include Aquinas' Aristotelian scholasticism (but I don't think you'll get to that until the middle book).

So, there's a reason the trilogy is not an easy read. As I said, he expects everyone to know what he's writing about. I wonder if he did so because there was a time when we in the west were better educated and had a better sense of these things simply due to the classic classical/liberal (broad) education. Folks like Allan Bloom (The Closing of the American Mind) and Mortimer Adler have recounted the erosion of American education in their lifetime. Adler was Christian (at least institutionally, but Adler was atheist. I doubt either one of them read Schaeffer, but they were certainly documenting from their own povs what Schaeffer had recounted a decade or two earlier to an evangelical Christian readership.

So far, in my read, I'm seeing him agree with Sproul's (and some few others') decrying of Christianity's abandonment of reason. (Though not at all denying the reliability of revelation, (at least, in God's word).)

You mean Sproul agreed with Schaeffer. Sproul was a "Schaefferite" . Schaeffer was born about 25 years before Sproul and his first book came out about five years ahead of Sproul's.

As you might imagine, this is something near and dear to me. Christianity's doctrine, and in particular, the Gospel, if true, has to make sense —and if not to me, at least we can count on it, that it IS logical regardless.

I have given the trilogy out as gifts and recommended it to professors, peers, clients, and friends over the last 40 years and although there have been some naysayers (I had a philosophy professor who called Schaeffer's ideas a four-letter word) even the atheists I've known have come back to me acknowledging the intellectual integrity of Christianity. I once recommended the book to a heroin addict, I was treating and upon his graduation from the residential program in which he was living, and I was working he recounted his conversion and credited Schaeffer for showing him Christianity wasn't had intellectual integrity he never understood.

It's been almost 20 years, and that man is still sober and still a believer.

 

[Josheb]

What I have found him describing current thought is that the world in general, to include the church, has migrated from absolutism of a sort and confidence in reason by use of absolutes, to Kierkegaard's kind of "leap of faith" thinking, and relativism.............

It was once understood we (humans in general) lived in a postmodern world (ethically). Much of what Schaeffer wrote about is that postmodernism. However, we no longer live in a postmodern world, imo. We now live in a post-postmodern world. There's a marginal return to the belief in universals and the validity of religious thought and experience. The problem is one of factionalism, and factionalism with the belief there's a standard somewhere by which everything can be measured but no consensus on what might be that measure. This is why Pearcey and Trueman are good follow-ups to Schaeffer. They're writing about contemporary matters. Sadly, their audience is mainly Christian.

 

[Alive]

I started to read the trilogy and became bored and quit.
Lol
Sorry.

 

[Josheb]

I started to read the trilogy and became bored and quit.
Lol
Sorry.

Was that because the content was already familiar? Or dry writing style (I found his "Genesis in Space and Time," rather dry). Many, on another hand, stop reading because it's not an easy read due to the (real or perceived) esoteric content and repetition.

 

[Alive]

Was that because the content was already familiar? Or dry writing style (I found his "Genesis in Space and Time," rather dry). Many, on another hand, stop reading because it's not an easy read due to the (real or perceived) esoteric content and repetition.

Hmmmm? Trying to recall, but I think the whole thing was obvious and not the sort of thing I am interested in. I have come to a place where I think about the simple things.

What people do and how they act and think in various situations over history is transparent...to me.

 

[Josheb]

Btw, many Christians are familiar with Schaeffer via his "A Christian Manifesto," or "How Shall We Then Live?" The first is a treatise of civil disobedience relevant to the prolife position. The second is a brief explanation why western culture is a such a mess. It too summarizes philosophy and art to make its points.

I will add that some of Schaeffer's interpretations may be found wanting. If the critics of his books are read that is a common complaint. I'll suggest two reasons: 1) at the risk of sounding condescending, the books were written to a Christian audience and the unregenerate simply doesn't understand, and/or 2) differences of opinion are permitted. For example, I'm not a big fan of Picasso. I used to live just outside of DC and regularly visited the museums and galleries. It wasn't until I took a lecture tour on Picasso that I began to understand Picasso's attempt to put three and four (transcendent) dimensional realities on a two-dimensional medium. I don't think much of (most) abstract "art." I hold the opinion that if I have to read the title to understand what I'm looking at then it's not art. My wife, who has a minor in art, holds the exact opposite pov. None of this changes Schaeffer's observation Picasso eventually had to "resort" to language to communicate, and although some may disagree with Schaeffer's premise Picasso had to turn to language to communicate what he could not express abstractly with paint, the fact remains written language is an antithesis to abstract art and Picasso is an example of art's movement away from communicating in a commonly understood manner that can be objectively observed from the realists through the Impressionists, the Fauvists (Matisse), Cubists (Picasso), Expressionism (Pollock) to Postmodernism (Warhol, Lichtenstein) and on to Transgressivism (Serrano). In many conversations with academics and artists disagreement with particular statements of Schaeffer are expressed but, upon inquiry, the overall point acknowledged: philosophy's and art's exchange with culture increasingly distanced itself from both the once near-universal commonly-held (Judeo-Christian) worldview specifically, and the common person in general.

At the end of the Picasso tour I asked the lecturer, "How much of this lecture's content could be understood without the lecture, just by examining the paintings?" and "How would I understand what's being said about these paintings if I didn't take a tour like this one?" The answers were, "Probably, very little," and "You probably wouldn't."

Keep that in mind if reading the one-star and two-star reviews of Schaeffer's books.

Once read..... understand the irony .

 

[Josheb]

Hmmmm? Trying to recall, but I think the whole thing was obvious and not the sort of thing I am interested in. I have come to a place where I think about the simple things.

What people do and how they act and think in various situations over history is transparent...to me.

If you give it another try, then consider starting with the third book, "....He is Not Silent." That's where I started.

 

[LeviR]

“No one can come to me…” - Jesus


“So, all this verse is teaching is that none of us has the natural ability in and of ourselves to come to Christ unless God does something. We’re still not sure exactly what it is that God does. And we’re still not sure that if God does it, it will guarantee that people will come. All we know is that whatever it is God does, it is a necessary condition—a prerequisite.” -RC Sproul

God did do something. He wrote a book.

 

[LeviR]

All who read the book and believe it, CAN come to Jesus.