What do you think?
Rate this book
The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview #5
The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer a Christian Worldview Volume 5 A Christian View of the West
"The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Worldview" (5 Volume Set, Hardcovers)
Paperback
Published January 1, 1985
1 person is currently reading
89 people want to read
About the author
Francis A. Schaeffer
95 books801 followersFrancis August Schaeffer was an American Evangelical Christian theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor. He is most famous for his writings and his establishment of the L'Abri community in Switzerland. Opposed to theological modernism, Schaeffer promoted a more historic Protestant faith and a presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics which he believed would answer the questions of the age.
Wife: Edith Schaeffer
children: Susan Schaeffer Macaulay
Wife: Edith Schaeffer
children: Susan Schaeffer Macaulay
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
October 19, 2025
- How Should We Then Live -
This book by Schaeffer wasn’t my favorite or even his best book, but it was fully Schaeffer from beginning to end. Schaeffer interacts with many historical philosophers, artists, and thinkers, as he did in Escape from Reason and He is There and He is not Silent. But in this one he pushes further to the responsibility of the Christian - if the teachings of scripture are true, and all the thinkers of our day are missing that truth, how should we then live in light of that truth? What are the practical outworkings of our faith? If Christ owns everything down to the last French fry, what are our responsibilities? I feel like men such as Jordan Peterson would really benefit from Schaeffer because they can taste the truths that the world’s philosophers chased but never fell upon, and they know there is something more to all of this but are lost in the maze of man’s reasoning. Schaeffer can be a good guide out of that entrapment with books like these.
- Pollution and the Death of Man -
Schaeffer addresses the then-growing concern over ecological issues in Christendom. Schaeffer ties our ideas of environmental concern with our theological preconceptions. He argues that environmental degradation is not just scientific or political—it is the result of a wrong worldview. When people reject God as Creator, nature is reduced to a mere machine to be exploited. He argues that as Christians, we ought to care about God’s creation.He has three major points to this end: First, that Nature is created by God and called good. Second, that Humans are stewards, not destroyers, of the earth. And thirdly, that abuse of nature is a moral evil and a result of sin.
At the same time, there must be a rejection of the pantheism of many outside the faith who also care for our environment. Pantheism devalues humanity by equating humans with animals and plants. It fails logically—if everything is God, then everything is meaningless. What Schaeffer is looking for here is a balanced dominion—humans are unique but must care responsibly for creation. There are historical examples of Christians doing this correctly, as Schaeffer points to Francis of Assisi as a positive influence on the idea of Christian environmentalism. As Schaeffer wrote “Francis did not adore nature; he respected it as a fellow creature made by God.” Assisi is not a perfect example, certainly his followers drifted off into a mysticism of nature, but he is not necessarily the one historical person I would base an entire theological position off. That being said, this book was a helpful antidote for the growing suspicion of Environmentalism as well as a needed rebuke for those who just see caring for our earth as polishing the brass on the sinking titanic.
- Whatever Happened to the Human Race -
The subject of this book at first seems out of place for Francis Schaeffer to have co-written. As I have made my way through Schaeffer’s entire corpus, this one seems a bit misplaced from the major focus that Schaeffer had through his other works on culture, politics, theology, philosophy, and so forth. This is a polemic against abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide that was ramping up as a result of Roe v Wade coming to surface 50 years ago.
The book begins by providing the scientific process involved in abortions, which is sickening. Then moves towards the justifications for abortion. And finishes with a defense of life and how Christians can work to end it. A first step was the overturning of Roe v Wade, which we have seen a couple years ago. But it can’t end there.
This is profoundly a cultural, theological, and political issue that must be dealt with. As Steve Wilkins pointed out years ago, pro-choice individuals are not anti-kids, they are anti-inconvenience. This was likely true for most people near the beginning, but I do think that is now the minority view. Pro-choice individuals are anti-kids AND anti-inconvenience. I think Schaeffer proves this to be the case here.
This is not a happy or encouraging book, but it is a book that is worth reading anyway to understand how evil our culture was and still is.
Peter Kreeft has stated it well when he wrote that “Abortion is the Antichrist’s demonic parody of the Eucharist. That is why it uses the same holy words, ‘This is my body,’ with the blasphemously opposite meaning.”
- A Christian manifesto -
As I have been making my way through the works of Francis Schaeffer, I had to return to this work to review it again in light of information I came across a couple years ago that is worth mentioning. Schaeffer outright plagiarized multiple authors in this work, and when confronted with the proof, he never rectified it beyond adding a footnote to full paragraphs he took from other authors.
Gary North wrote on the plagiarism problem that Schaeffer had starting on page 164 of Political Polytheism in Chapter 4 "Halfway Covenant Social Criticism". Detailed evidence of plagiarism begins on page 193. It is worth looking into to see how stark these problems were that Schaeffer knew all too well about. As one commenter pointed out “I think North saw the enormous potential for advancing the Kingdom that Schaeffer could have had, but which was largely wasted due to internally muddled theology and a failure to be forthright even about his actual (Calvinistic/ covenantal) commitments. Perhaps Schaeffer's failure to properly credit sources like Rushdoony and Chilton was motivated by a desire to maintain broad evangelical respectability and influence.”
Eric Wagner made mention of this debacle.
He wrote that he “Knew firsthand (I knew Rushdoony and went to his church in the early 1980's in Vallecito) that Francis Schaeffer spent time at Vallecito and "borrowed" lots of Rush's published works (read A Christian Manifesto- anyone who has read Rush will recognize the language). Rush knew about it and did not care for the most part. He said he would reach thousands, but Schaeffer would reach millions. He was correct, but as you have pointed out, Schaeffer pointed out the problem (secular humanism) but not the solution (Christian Reconstruction).”
Gary North wrote in Political Polytheism “The following remarks need this preface: I do not think Francis Schaeffer actually researched or wrote A Christian Manifesto. At the very least, we at the Institute for Christian Economics were told by one of his associates that he did not personally do the all of the basic research for it. Like his popular early books, which were edited by James Sire from tapes of Schaeffer's lectures, A Christian Manifesto may have been merely edited in its final stages by Schaeffer. If he did research it, then he was even more dishonest in hiding footnotes than I have previously indicated.
In 1981, David Chilton spotted a phrase on page 97 of A Christian Manifesto which had been lifted virtually word for word from page 200 of Chilton's essay on John Knox, published in early 1979. Here
is what he found:
Chilton: “Within a few years, tens of thousands of Huguenots were offering armed resistance to the French government; and the year Knox died saw the beginning of the successful Calvinist revolt and takeover of Holland and Zeeland. Knox had shocked the world with his Admonition to England, but he had also convinced it. As Ridley states it, "The theory of the justification of revolution is Knox's special contribution to theological and
political thought."
Schaeffer: “Within a few years, tens of thousands of Huguenots were offering armed resistance to the French government; and the year Knox died saw the beginning of the successful revolt and saving of Holland. Knox had shocked the world with his Admonition to England, but he had also been convincing. Jasper Ridley in John Knox writes, "The theory of the justifica- tion of revolution is Knox's special contribution to theological and political
thought."
Then Chilton spotted another direct lifting, in this case from Richard Flinn's essay on Samuel Rutherford, which appeared in the same issue of the Journal of Christian Reconstruction in which Chilton's essay had appeared.
Flinn: “Rutherford suggests that there are levels of resistance in which a private person may engage. Firstly, he must defend himself by supplications and apologies; secondly, he must seek to flee if at all possible; and, thirdly, he may use violence to defend himself. One should not employ violence if he may save himself by flight; so one should not employ flight if he can save and defend himself by supplications and the employment of constitutional means of redress. Rutherford illustrates this pattern of resistance from the
life of David. On the other hand, when the offense is against a corporate group such as a duly constituted state or town or local body, or such as a church, then flight is often an impractical and unrealistic means of resistance.”
Schaeffer: “In such an instance, for the private person, the individual, Rutherford suggested that there are three appropriate levels of resistance: First, he must defend himself by protest (in contemporary society this would most often be by legal action); second, he must flee if at all possible; and, third, he may use force, if necessary, to defend himself. One should not employ force if he may save himself by flight; nor should one employ flight if he can save himself and defend himself by protest and the employment of constitutional means of redress. Rutherford illustrated this pattern of resis-
tance from the life of David as it is recorded in the Old Testament. On the other hand, when the state commits illegitimate acts against a corporate body— such as a duly constituted state or local body, or even a church- then flight is often an impractical and unrealistic means of resistance.”
Even some of the italics are the same! Chilton complained about these clear-cut cases of plagiarism in a letter to Schaeffer, and he received a reply from a subordinate pleading that Schaeffer had been given the material from a researcher without any source notes at- tached, and that the lack of acknowledgment was not really Schaeffer's fault. If this was the case, it is pathetic. If this was not the case, then it is also pathetic. In the eighth printing of Christian Manifesto, dated 1982, Schaeffer acknowledged in a pair of footnotes his debt to the two articles in general, though he did not admit to his prior verbatim liftings. Chilton let bygones be bygones and stopped complaining. He and I did not mention this incident in our 1983 essay on "Apologetics and Strategy," although we did mention the nearly verbatim lifting of certain material from Rushdoony's The One and the Many (1971). We had not noticed that Schaeffer's Complete Works (1982) reproduced the first edition of the Christian Manifesto, so the footnotes acknowledging Chilton and Flinn were again missing. Had we spotted this, we might not have been so conciliatory. Printing and typesetting sched- ules were presumably responsible for the omission, but when you or your research assistant literally steal other men's works, and the victims catch you at it, then you should go out of your way to rectify things, even if it means some extra typesetting fees or a delay in pub- lishing your Complete Works. Make the set complete: add the missing footnotes (not to mention the missing essay on infant baptism).”
All this being said, there is a lot of good material and information in this book, however the disingenuous nature of the source material and the unwillingness to rectify the issue is enough to want to only read it while holding one’s nose.
This book by Schaeffer wasn’t my favorite or even his best book, but it was fully Schaeffer from beginning to end. Schaeffer interacts with many historical philosophers, artists, and thinkers, as he did in Escape from Reason and He is There and He is not Silent. But in this one he pushes further to the responsibility of the Christian - if the teachings of scripture are true, and all the thinkers of our day are missing that truth, how should we then live in light of that truth? What are the practical outworkings of our faith? If Christ owns everything down to the last French fry, what are our responsibilities? I feel like men such as Jordan Peterson would really benefit from Schaeffer because they can taste the truths that the world’s philosophers chased but never fell upon, and they know there is something more to all of this but are lost in the maze of man’s reasoning. Schaeffer can be a good guide out of that entrapment with books like these.
- Pollution and the Death of Man -
Schaeffer addresses the then-growing concern over ecological issues in Christendom. Schaeffer ties our ideas of environmental concern with our theological preconceptions. He argues that environmental degradation is not just scientific or political—it is the result of a wrong worldview. When people reject God as Creator, nature is reduced to a mere machine to be exploited. He argues that as Christians, we ought to care about God’s creation.He has three major points to this end: First, that Nature is created by God and called good. Second, that Humans are stewards, not destroyers, of the earth. And thirdly, that abuse of nature is a moral evil and a result of sin.
At the same time, there must be a rejection of the pantheism of many outside the faith who also care for our environment. Pantheism devalues humanity by equating humans with animals and plants. It fails logically—if everything is God, then everything is meaningless. What Schaeffer is looking for here is a balanced dominion—humans are unique but must care responsibly for creation. There are historical examples of Christians doing this correctly, as Schaeffer points to Francis of Assisi as a positive influence on the idea of Christian environmentalism. As Schaeffer wrote “Francis did not adore nature; he respected it as a fellow creature made by God.” Assisi is not a perfect example, certainly his followers drifted off into a mysticism of nature, but he is not necessarily the one historical person I would base an entire theological position off. That being said, this book was a helpful antidote for the growing suspicion of Environmentalism as well as a needed rebuke for those who just see caring for our earth as polishing the brass on the sinking titanic.
- Whatever Happened to the Human Race -
The subject of this book at first seems out of place for Francis Schaeffer to have co-written. As I have made my way through Schaeffer’s entire corpus, this one seems a bit misplaced from the major focus that Schaeffer had through his other works on culture, politics, theology, philosophy, and so forth. This is a polemic against abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide that was ramping up as a result of Roe v Wade coming to surface 50 years ago.
The book begins by providing the scientific process involved in abortions, which is sickening. Then moves towards the justifications for abortion. And finishes with a defense of life and how Christians can work to end it. A first step was the overturning of Roe v Wade, which we have seen a couple years ago. But it can’t end there.
This is profoundly a cultural, theological, and political issue that must be dealt with. As Steve Wilkins pointed out years ago, pro-choice individuals are not anti-kids, they are anti-inconvenience. This was likely true for most people near the beginning, but I do think that is now the minority view. Pro-choice individuals are anti-kids AND anti-inconvenience. I think Schaeffer proves this to be the case here.
This is not a happy or encouraging book, but it is a book that is worth reading anyway to understand how evil our culture was and still is.
Peter Kreeft has stated it well when he wrote that “Abortion is the Antichrist’s demonic parody of the Eucharist. That is why it uses the same holy words, ‘This is my body,’ with the blasphemously opposite meaning.”
- A Christian manifesto -
As I have been making my way through the works of Francis Schaeffer, I had to return to this work to review it again in light of information I came across a couple years ago that is worth mentioning. Schaeffer outright plagiarized multiple authors in this work, and when confronted with the proof, he never rectified it beyond adding a footnote to full paragraphs he took from other authors.
Gary North wrote on the plagiarism problem that Schaeffer had starting on page 164 of Political Polytheism in Chapter 4 "Halfway Covenant Social Criticism". Detailed evidence of plagiarism begins on page 193. It is worth looking into to see how stark these problems were that Schaeffer knew all too well about. As one commenter pointed out “I think North saw the enormous potential for advancing the Kingdom that Schaeffer could have had, but which was largely wasted due to internally muddled theology and a failure to be forthright even about his actual (Calvinistic/ covenantal) commitments. Perhaps Schaeffer's failure to properly credit sources like Rushdoony and Chilton was motivated by a desire to maintain broad evangelical respectability and influence.”
Eric Wagner made mention of this debacle.
He wrote that he “Knew firsthand (I knew Rushdoony and went to his church in the early 1980's in Vallecito) that Francis Schaeffer spent time at Vallecito and "borrowed" lots of Rush's published works (read A Christian Manifesto- anyone who has read Rush will recognize the language). Rush knew about it and did not care for the most part. He said he would reach thousands, but Schaeffer would reach millions. He was correct, but as you have pointed out, Schaeffer pointed out the problem (secular humanism) but not the solution (Christian Reconstruction).”
Gary North wrote in Political Polytheism “The following remarks need this preface: I do not think Francis Schaeffer actually researched or wrote A Christian Manifesto. At the very least, we at the Institute for Christian Economics were told by one of his associates that he did not personally do the all of the basic research for it. Like his popular early books, which were edited by James Sire from tapes of Schaeffer's lectures, A Christian Manifesto may have been merely edited in its final stages by Schaeffer. If he did research it, then he was even more dishonest in hiding footnotes than I have previously indicated.
In 1981, David Chilton spotted a phrase on page 97 of A Christian Manifesto which had been lifted virtually word for word from page 200 of Chilton's essay on John Knox, published in early 1979. Here
is what he found:
Chilton: “Within a few years, tens of thousands of Huguenots were offering armed resistance to the French government; and the year Knox died saw the beginning of the successful Calvinist revolt and takeover of Holland and Zeeland. Knox had shocked the world with his Admonition to England, but he had also convinced it. As Ridley states it, "The theory of the justification of revolution is Knox's special contribution to theological and
political thought."
Schaeffer: “Within a few years, tens of thousands of Huguenots were offering armed resistance to the French government; and the year Knox died saw the beginning of the successful revolt and saving of Holland. Knox had shocked the world with his Admonition to England, but he had also been convincing. Jasper Ridley in John Knox writes, "The theory of the justifica- tion of revolution is Knox's special contribution to theological and political
thought."
Then Chilton spotted another direct lifting, in this case from Richard Flinn's essay on Samuel Rutherford, which appeared in the same issue of the Journal of Christian Reconstruction in which Chilton's essay had appeared.
Flinn: “Rutherford suggests that there are levels of resistance in which a private person may engage. Firstly, he must defend himself by supplications and apologies; secondly, he must seek to flee if at all possible; and, thirdly, he may use violence to defend himself. One should not employ violence if he may save himself by flight; so one should not employ flight if he can save and defend himself by supplications and the employment of constitutional means of redress. Rutherford illustrates this pattern of resistance from the
life of David. On the other hand, when the offense is against a corporate group such as a duly constituted state or town or local body, or such as a church, then flight is often an impractical and unrealistic means of resistance.”
Schaeffer: “In such an instance, for the private person, the individual, Rutherford suggested that there are three appropriate levels of resistance: First, he must defend himself by protest (in contemporary society this would most often be by legal action); second, he must flee if at all possible; and, third, he may use force, if necessary, to defend himself. One should not employ force if he may save himself by flight; nor should one employ flight if he can save himself and defend himself by protest and the employment of constitutional means of redress. Rutherford illustrated this pattern of resis-
tance from the life of David as it is recorded in the Old Testament. On the other hand, when the state commits illegitimate acts against a corporate body— such as a duly constituted state or local body, or even a church- then flight is often an impractical and unrealistic means of resistance.”
Even some of the italics are the same! Chilton complained about these clear-cut cases of plagiarism in a letter to Schaeffer, and he received a reply from a subordinate pleading that Schaeffer had been given the material from a researcher without any source notes at- tached, and that the lack of acknowledgment was not really Schaeffer's fault. If this was the case, it is pathetic. If this was not the case, then it is also pathetic. In the eighth printing of Christian Manifesto, dated 1982, Schaeffer acknowledged in a pair of footnotes his debt to the two articles in general, though he did not admit to his prior verbatim liftings. Chilton let bygones be bygones and stopped complaining. He and I did not mention this incident in our 1983 essay on "Apologetics and Strategy," although we did mention the nearly verbatim lifting of certain material from Rushdoony's The One and the Many (1971). We had not noticed that Schaeffer's Complete Works (1982) reproduced the first edition of the Christian Manifesto, so the footnotes acknowledging Chilton and Flinn were again missing. Had we spotted this, we might not have been so conciliatory. Printing and typesetting sched- ules were presumably responsible for the omission, but when you or your research assistant literally steal other men's works, and the victims catch you at it, then you should go out of your way to rectify things, even if it means some extra typesetting fees or a delay in pub- lishing your Complete Works. Make the set complete: add the missing footnotes (not to mention the missing essay on infant baptism).”
All this being said, there is a lot of good material and information in this book, however the disingenuous nature of the source material and the unwillingness to rectify the issue is enough to want to only read it while holding one’s nose.
May 10, 2019
Shaeffer was a one of a kind. Unlike most books on philosophy, which tend to look backwards, Shaeffer looks forwards and predicts with remarkable accuracy the moods and beliefs of the 20th and 21st Centuries. He also shows the need for Judeo Christian values, even in the modern and post modern age. What I particularly appreciate about Shaeffer is how he mixes history and art and culture together, to demonstrate how our world views impact every area of life.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews