What do you think?
Rate this book
A Christian Manifesto
In this explosive book, Francis Schaeffer shows why morality and freedom have crumbled in our society. He calls for a massive movement-in government, law, and all of life-to reestablish our Judeo-Christian foundation and turn the tide of moral decadence and loss of freedom. A Christian Manifesto is literally a call for Christians to change the course of history-by returning to biblical Truth and by allowing Christ to be Lord in all of life.
160 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1981
81 people are currently reading
2882 people want to read
About the author
Francis A. Schaeffer
96 books817 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 - 30 of 257 reviews
October 12, 2025
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.
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.
March 5, 2012
A fantastic read that is sadly necessary to combat those who downplay this belief instead of respecting it as a legitimate philosophy on life.
September 7, 2020
Absolutely terrific! Every Christian should read this book “for such a time as this.” Schaeffer builds on his previous work and applies his “total reality” principle to government. Where are the men and women of our day who will take such a bold stance against humanism and the flood of secularism??? “Wake up! Strengthen the things which remain, that are about to die, for I (Jesus) have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God” (Rev 3:2).
November 8, 2024
Very good! This needs to be read now still incredibly relevant to our current situation.
June 24, 2023
I found Shaeffer’s thoughts on the old and new pluralism insightful. He says that the old pluralism merely recognized the presence of different worldviews and religions in a theistic society. The new pluralism affirms all faiths and worldviews as legitimate while ignoring that they contradict one another. We see this second definition expressed in the ‘coexist’ movement of our day, which is a misnomer when you get down to what they mean. He also addresses the issue of human dignity in several places. All are to be treated with dignity because all are made in the image of God. This is consistent with what he said in his other works. He rightly critiques the humanistic view as merely presenting man as part of the machinery of the universe. He argues that in the materialistic mechanical universe, ethics have no role in the practical aspects of human lives. I found that interesting in light of current discussions surrounding the ethics of artificial intelligence. Who decides what is right or wrong with AI and where are the moral absolutes that govern those? On the other hand, I think that the fears surrounding AI point not to a naiveté about the technology, but a naiveté about humanity, origins, and eschatology, because, again, as Shaeffer rightly observes, we are all a part of the machinery. The entire humanist system is flawed, argues Shaeffer, and thus Christians must stand opposed to that system, whether found in secular humanism or in religious humanism such as liberal Christianity. A worthy read indeed.
October 10, 2022
I really wish Pastors, theologians, lawyers, doctors, politicians, and all others who call themselves Christians would have took to heart these writings back then. I think some did it just took longer than expected and that is how we are living in “Post-Roe” US. I pray the current and upcoming generations will rediscover the Christian understanding of politics not as the “Christ-less” conservatism of some, but all of Christ for all of life. This book is still very much relevant.
July 23, 2023
This little book is still very applicable and needed in our cultural moment now.
Schaeffer implores his Christian readers,
“We must not confuse the Kingdom of God with our country, or to put it differently, we should not wrap Christianity in our national flag.”
Although he used issues of his day as examples, his message is still relevant today.
There is much to reflect on from this writing.
Schaeffer implores his Christian readers,
“We must not confuse the Kingdom of God with our country, or to put it differently, we should not wrap Christianity in our national flag.”
Although he used issues of his day as examples, his message is still relevant today.
There is much to reflect on from this writing.
September 19, 2013
I have read this work more than once. Schaeffer's basic arguments and philosophy hold up well over time. I would say his thoughts and logic are being proven correct by present culture and circumstances. Cultural and political changes do not make truth untruthful. They simply make identifying true truth more difficult to discern due to all of the verbal and other detritus used to try to hide the truth. Schaeffer does a good job separating truth from the clutter.
April 28, 2013
Well, that book was the opposite of worthwhile.
I have GOT to stop adding books to my "to read" list based only on an interesting title!
While I'm at it, I'll go ahead and remove any other Francis Schaeffer books lying in wait on that ominous list...
I have GOT to stop adding books to my "to read" list based only on an interesting title!
While I'm at it, I'll go ahead and remove any other Francis Schaeffer books lying in wait on that ominous list...
May 30, 2009
Excellent. Also read in December of 1981.
July 31, 2021
The real reason the Christian Right decided to oppose abortion...
https://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...
https://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...
May 5, 2020
Schaeffer has some brilliant writing here, still relevant almost 40 years later.
July 6, 2016
A typical rant about the collapse of American moral society
1 June 2013
After reading the first couple of chapters of this book I have come to understand why it is that Schaeffer's son has broken with the groups that his father was involved in and moved over to the Christian Left. While I do generally like Schaeffer's writings, and also his ability to connect with people from various backgrounds, this book, at first, felt like a rant against the direction that US society is heading, and in particular his attacks against abortion. There are a number of things that I agree with in this book, and a number of things with which I disagree.
Schaeffer is correct when he writes about the separation of church and state and that the state should not seek to enter and influence the realm of the church. In a sense that is similar to how the state should not be overtly interventionist in the lives of the individual person, however while standing up against the state seeking to combat and attack the church, he seems to advocate that the state also take a moral stance with regards to the lives of individuals.
He speaks about how the laws of our society are based on a Christian world view, and he clearly has the Ten Commandments in mind. This is something that I generally balk against because the first five commandments deal with our obligations towards God (which includes honouring our parents as that is reflective of our relationship with God) and the last five deal with our obligations towards our fellow human beings. However, Jesus clearly stated that all the law and prophets come down to two points: love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbour as yourself. While he speaks of our law losing its Christian foundation and moving into a more relativistic mindset it is clear here that he is speaking mainly of abortion, and this is something that I will address a little later.
I actually support the removal of the Ten Commandments from the Schools and from the courts. These laws are personal laws that apply to us, and in fact, if the state begins to legislate religion, in the form of the first and second commandments, then suddenly the whole argument of the separation of church and state becomes a moot point because all of the sudden the state is legislating religion. However, let us consider the last five commandments:
6) You shall not murder: with the exception of abortion, it is pretty much understood that we cannot go around killing people, and those who do tend to suffer the full wrath of the law. However, one needs to consider the definition of murder, and that is an unlawful killing. There are numerous instances were the state has sanctioned a killing, such as during war, for self-defense, and a policeman in the line of duty. However, in all of these instances (with maybe the exception of war) the state will vigorously examine each of these events to determine whether it has been sanctioned or not. However, then comes the issue of the death penalty. It seems that there are a lot of people in the United States that support the death penalty, and in fact the Republicans (known colloquially as God's Own Party) have since brought the death penalty back in a lot of states. Thus, we have on the one hand a reaction against abortion, but on the other hand an acceptance of the death penalty. To me that sounds like hypocrisy.
7) You Shall Not Commit Adultery: okay, this has fallen off the radar in our permissive society, but we must remember that marriage is a civil contract (actually, it is more a covenant, but that is a specific legal term, so we will leave it as a contract) between two people, and to impose a Christian moral stance upon non-Christians is once again the State entering into a realm in which it should not enter. While I am a big believer in faithfulness in marriage, this is one area of the law that the state needs to back away from. However, there are always repercussions, for marriages will and do break up over these things, and the results of adultery can be quite tragic for many people. However, to make adultery a criminal offence, or to return to a fault based system for divorce pretty much winds the clock back.
8) You Shall Not Steal: Isn't it interesting that the one law that seems to dominate our society is number eight on the list, and that is the law of private property. To say that we have moved away from our Christian roots is to ignore the fact that private property plays a huge importance in our economic system. In fact, it is probably right in saying that our laws have become ambiguous when we hold private property far above everything else. However, you try to steal somebody's lawn mower, break into their house, or even try to steal their idea, you will find that the law of private property comes into play very strongly.
Okay, this book was written in 1982 so the whole concept of patenting genes and seeds was not as evident as it is today. However, it is very much the case today, and many people can find themselves on the wrong side of a law suit simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Companies like Monsanto are pretty much buying up the rights to living organisms, and corporations are drowning out public places and replacing them with shopping malls where their laws hold greater power. In a shopping centre one is restricted in many ways, including freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
9) You Shall not bare false witness: This is not necessarily restricted to lying in court but takes in all forms of defamation and gossip. I can assure you that the libel and slander laws are alive and well, and actually go to a point where criticism of anybody or anything is banned. The axiom of 'if you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all' is alive and well. Of course, that does not apply when one is criticising religion or somebody's left wing political views.
10) Though shall not covet: This is simply having a desire to possess something that somebody else has, but the idea I get from the Bible is that it is extreme. Basically this is a thought control type of law and is impossible to legislate against. On the other hand, it seems that the idea of covetousness is what makes our current economic system work. If we were not forever 'keeping up with the Joneses' then our economy would grind to a halt. Thus, the basic human desire of coveting something means that we will go out and spend money that we do not have to acquire something that they do not need just so that we look good among our neighbours.
Therefore I have outlined a number of areas briefly as to how the current legal system is nowhere near as bad as what Schaeffer, and others, are saying. However, there are a few more points, such as the story he tells of how somebody committed suicide when he attended counselling with a pastor and not a professional. I have spoken to a pastor recently who has agreed that while a psychologist may not be a Christian, he may be much better to deal with mental illness than a pastor. In fact Pastors are not, and are not trained to be, psychologists. My experience with using pastors as psychologists (and even small group leaders) has always ended up in disaster. Simply put, they are so biblically focused, and many are so caught up on the 'don't worry, God loves you' mentality that they do not understand the root causes of mental illness.
From my experience, one major issue I had in church was bullying by self-righteous Christians, and that caused me significant angst to say the least. However, when one approaches a pastor about this, the standard response is 'forgive them and reconcile with them.' Forgiveness and reconciliation is one thing, however a bully will always be a bully unless confronted, and the nature of any religion (and I am not limiting myself to Christianity here) is that it gives rise, naturally, to self-righteous individuals who seek to dominate others. However, responding with 'this is a fallen world, and the church is full of fallen people, so grin and bare it' does not address the problem, and in the end punishes the victim and rewards the perpetrator.
So this now comes down to the issue of abortion (which I have said that I will talk about). Basically I am pro-life meaning that any sanctioned taking of human life by anybody should be very few and far between, and that includes war. War should be the absolute last resort for any dispute between countries. People should be tried and given the opportunities to repent of their actions, and the death penalty may end up hindering that process (even though from conviction to execution in the United States still takes years). Abortion should be used in rare circumstances and not on an on demand basis as an exception to contraception. However, abortion is also a form of oppression against woman, and to make abortion the central facet of what is wrong with America is to completely miss the point. By bringing abortion to the centre stage is to say that women should be punished for promiscuity and not men, but is also to say that you have freedom of choice, unless of course you are a woman, then that freedom is denied to you.
Now I am going to jump back a bit to education and suggest that while I am a creationist I do not believe that creation should be taught in public schools. Once again that is the state encroaching into the area of the religious, and to force creationism, especially seven day creationism, to the exclusion of all other theories, is to force one brand of Christianity onto a society that is not necessarily Christian. The same with the Ten Commandments in the schools. If a child asks a teacher, who does not understand the underlying nature of the Ten Commandments, what they are, they are probably going to be more confused than otherwise.
Which brings me to my final point, and that is the idea that we we're a Christian nation. That is absolute rubbish. The past may have had the state dictating our religion (as was the case in England) or a large portion of the population claiming to be Christian, but we were never Christian. If we were Christian we would not have brutally murdered the natives of our respective countries, overthrown governments in the pursuit of business interests, or oppressed minorities simply because they were different. To say that the American Rebellion had Christian foundations is also to miss the point because it was purely an economic rebellion. It was based mostly upon taxation. Further, the rebellion was a rebellion of the American ruling class against the British ruling class. The founding fathers were all wealthy, white, male, land owners. In fact, many of the people in the United States at the time were against the rebellion. However, I should refer you to Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States 1492 to Present for a further exploration of that.
1 June 2013
After reading the first couple of chapters of this book I have come to understand why it is that Schaeffer's son has broken with the groups that his father was involved in and moved over to the Christian Left. While I do generally like Schaeffer's writings, and also his ability to connect with people from various backgrounds, this book, at first, felt like a rant against the direction that US society is heading, and in particular his attacks against abortion. There are a number of things that I agree with in this book, and a number of things with which I disagree.
Schaeffer is correct when he writes about the separation of church and state and that the state should not seek to enter and influence the realm of the church. In a sense that is similar to how the state should not be overtly interventionist in the lives of the individual person, however while standing up against the state seeking to combat and attack the church, he seems to advocate that the state also take a moral stance with regards to the lives of individuals.
He speaks about how the laws of our society are based on a Christian world view, and he clearly has the Ten Commandments in mind. This is something that I generally balk against because the first five commandments deal with our obligations towards God (which includes honouring our parents as that is reflective of our relationship with God) and the last five deal with our obligations towards our fellow human beings. However, Jesus clearly stated that all the law and prophets come down to two points: love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbour as yourself. While he speaks of our law losing its Christian foundation and moving into a more relativistic mindset it is clear here that he is speaking mainly of abortion, and this is something that I will address a little later.
I actually support the removal of the Ten Commandments from the Schools and from the courts. These laws are personal laws that apply to us, and in fact, if the state begins to legislate religion, in the form of the first and second commandments, then suddenly the whole argument of the separation of church and state becomes a moot point because all of the sudden the state is legislating religion. However, let us consider the last five commandments:
6) You shall not murder: with the exception of abortion, it is pretty much understood that we cannot go around killing people, and those who do tend to suffer the full wrath of the law. However, one needs to consider the definition of murder, and that is an unlawful killing. There are numerous instances were the state has sanctioned a killing, such as during war, for self-defense, and a policeman in the line of duty. However, in all of these instances (with maybe the exception of war) the state will vigorously examine each of these events to determine whether it has been sanctioned or not. However, then comes the issue of the death penalty. It seems that there are a lot of people in the United States that support the death penalty, and in fact the Republicans (known colloquially as God's Own Party) have since brought the death penalty back in a lot of states. Thus, we have on the one hand a reaction against abortion, but on the other hand an acceptance of the death penalty. To me that sounds like hypocrisy.
7) You Shall Not Commit Adultery: okay, this has fallen off the radar in our permissive society, but we must remember that marriage is a civil contract (actually, it is more a covenant, but that is a specific legal term, so we will leave it as a contract) between two people, and to impose a Christian moral stance upon non-Christians is once again the State entering into a realm in which it should not enter. While I am a big believer in faithfulness in marriage, this is one area of the law that the state needs to back away from. However, there are always repercussions, for marriages will and do break up over these things, and the results of adultery can be quite tragic for many people. However, to make adultery a criminal offence, or to return to a fault based system for divorce pretty much winds the clock back.
8) You Shall Not Steal: Isn't it interesting that the one law that seems to dominate our society is number eight on the list, and that is the law of private property. To say that we have moved away from our Christian roots is to ignore the fact that private property plays a huge importance in our economic system. In fact, it is probably right in saying that our laws have become ambiguous when we hold private property far above everything else. However, you try to steal somebody's lawn mower, break into their house, or even try to steal their idea, you will find that the law of private property comes into play very strongly.
Okay, this book was written in 1982 so the whole concept of patenting genes and seeds was not as evident as it is today. However, it is very much the case today, and many people can find themselves on the wrong side of a law suit simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Companies like Monsanto are pretty much buying up the rights to living organisms, and corporations are drowning out public places and replacing them with shopping malls where their laws hold greater power. In a shopping centre one is restricted in many ways, including freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
9) You Shall not bare false witness: This is not necessarily restricted to lying in court but takes in all forms of defamation and gossip. I can assure you that the libel and slander laws are alive and well, and actually go to a point where criticism of anybody or anything is banned. The axiom of 'if you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all' is alive and well. Of course, that does not apply when one is criticising religion or somebody's left wing political views.
10) Though shall not covet: This is simply having a desire to possess something that somebody else has, but the idea I get from the Bible is that it is extreme. Basically this is a thought control type of law and is impossible to legislate against. On the other hand, it seems that the idea of covetousness is what makes our current economic system work. If we were not forever 'keeping up with the Joneses' then our economy would grind to a halt. Thus, the basic human desire of coveting something means that we will go out and spend money that we do not have to acquire something that they do not need just so that we look good among our neighbours.
Therefore I have outlined a number of areas briefly as to how the current legal system is nowhere near as bad as what Schaeffer, and others, are saying. However, there are a few more points, such as the story he tells of how somebody committed suicide when he attended counselling with a pastor and not a professional. I have spoken to a pastor recently who has agreed that while a psychologist may not be a Christian, he may be much better to deal with mental illness than a pastor. In fact Pastors are not, and are not trained to be, psychologists. My experience with using pastors as psychologists (and even small group leaders) has always ended up in disaster. Simply put, they are so biblically focused, and many are so caught up on the 'don't worry, God loves you' mentality that they do not understand the root causes of mental illness.
From my experience, one major issue I had in church was bullying by self-righteous Christians, and that caused me significant angst to say the least. However, when one approaches a pastor about this, the standard response is 'forgive them and reconcile with them.' Forgiveness and reconciliation is one thing, however a bully will always be a bully unless confronted, and the nature of any religion (and I am not limiting myself to Christianity here) is that it gives rise, naturally, to self-righteous individuals who seek to dominate others. However, responding with 'this is a fallen world, and the church is full of fallen people, so grin and bare it' does not address the problem, and in the end punishes the victim and rewards the perpetrator.
So this now comes down to the issue of abortion (which I have said that I will talk about). Basically I am pro-life meaning that any sanctioned taking of human life by anybody should be very few and far between, and that includes war. War should be the absolute last resort for any dispute between countries. People should be tried and given the opportunities to repent of their actions, and the death penalty may end up hindering that process (even though from conviction to execution in the United States still takes years). Abortion should be used in rare circumstances and not on an on demand basis as an exception to contraception. However, abortion is also a form of oppression against woman, and to make abortion the central facet of what is wrong with America is to completely miss the point. By bringing abortion to the centre stage is to say that women should be punished for promiscuity and not men, but is also to say that you have freedom of choice, unless of course you are a woman, then that freedom is denied to you.
Now I am going to jump back a bit to education and suggest that while I am a creationist I do not believe that creation should be taught in public schools. Once again that is the state encroaching into the area of the religious, and to force creationism, especially seven day creationism, to the exclusion of all other theories, is to force one brand of Christianity onto a society that is not necessarily Christian. The same with the Ten Commandments in the schools. If a child asks a teacher, who does not understand the underlying nature of the Ten Commandments, what they are, they are probably going to be more confused than otherwise.
Which brings me to my final point, and that is the idea that we we're a Christian nation. That is absolute rubbish. The past may have had the state dictating our religion (as was the case in England) or a large portion of the population claiming to be Christian, but we were never Christian. If we were Christian we would not have brutally murdered the natives of our respective countries, overthrown governments in the pursuit of business interests, or oppressed minorities simply because they were different. To say that the American Rebellion had Christian foundations is also to miss the point because it was purely an economic rebellion. It was based mostly upon taxation. Further, the rebellion was a rebellion of the American ruling class against the British ruling class. The founding fathers were all wealthy, white, male, land owners. In fact, many of the people in the United States at the time were against the rebellion. However, I should refer you to Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States 1492 to Present for a further exploration of that.
January 22, 2021
I didn't intend to read a Christian tract about resisting tyranny and social godlessness during the same week a new president was inaugurated, but it seems God was in the timing.
A Christian Manifesto is Francis Schaeffer's argument from 1981, that Christians had for too long been lax in engaging a society that was slowly but surely turning away from God, and burning up all the Christian social capital accumulated during past ages. Christians' failure, Scaheffer believes, has been in attempting to segregate religious life from social and political life, thereby leaving the "non-religious" aspects of society open to the domination of anti-Christian doctrines. The primary issue that Schaeffer returns to throughout the book is abortion, and it is interesting to see him attempting to convince evangelicals that it is an issue which demands action. Apparently Schaeffer's appeal worked, because abortion remains a key issue for Protestants, but it may be a lesson for Christians in the consequences of waiting to engage the culture that no progress has been made toward addressing the issue politically, and only slightly has progress been made socially.
The book suffers, in my view, from a couple of problems, one Schaeffer's fault and one not. First, the issue not his fault, is simply how dated the book is, being written in another inauguration year, that of Ronald Reagan's first term. The datedness of the book obviously hampers some of its applicability today, particularly in Schaeffer's recommendations for action, though it does also lend a curious charm to the book and reminds the reader that the problems Christians face today are not new. The other problem is one that many evangelical books of this type have, which is that it's just not very historically, politically, or socially sophisticated outside of a specifically Reformed point of view (which is in itself very useful). Why Schaeffer and the evangelicals of the day didn't attach their movement to the longer-standing traditionalist conservatives, who had been fighting these intellectual battles for decades by this point, is hard to understand, particularly since there was considerable benefit to be had by both sides from the perspectives of the other.
The most interesting, and probably controversial, part of the book is Schaeffer's case for civil disobedience against tyranny, up to and including the right of self-defense. He attaches this case to the historical Reformed tradition stretching from William Tyndale and John Knox to Samuel Rutherford through to the American Revolution (Schaeffer mentions John Witherspoon by name, but as Mark David Hall has noted in Roger Sherman and the Creation of the American Republic, a significant majority of the founding generation had roots in Reformed political theory, which includes resistance to tyrants). No doubt the denizens of the online evangelical world today would scoff and proclaim horror at Schaeffer's thoughts along these lines, and I have my own Burkean reservations despite Schaeffer's attempt to distinguish between self-defense and revolution, but his points along these lines are well considered, and are certainly not less pertinent in a culture that now demands that we not only look the other way when it violates human life, but also demands Christians' acquiescence in a whole host of other rejections of God's moral law.
So while A Christian Manifesto has not aged as well as some of his other works, we could use a healthy injection into modern Christianity of Schaeffer's passion for boldly proclaiming and standing for the truth. Sadly, the malady that he identifies, of Christians being unwilling and unprepared to apply biblical truth to their entire worldviews persists in our day.
A Christian Manifesto is Francis Schaeffer's argument from 1981, that Christians had for too long been lax in engaging a society that was slowly but surely turning away from God, and burning up all the Christian social capital accumulated during past ages. Christians' failure, Scaheffer believes, has been in attempting to segregate religious life from social and political life, thereby leaving the "non-religious" aspects of society open to the domination of anti-Christian doctrines. The primary issue that Schaeffer returns to throughout the book is abortion, and it is interesting to see him attempting to convince evangelicals that it is an issue which demands action. Apparently Schaeffer's appeal worked, because abortion remains a key issue for Protestants, but it may be a lesson for Christians in the consequences of waiting to engage the culture that no progress has been made toward addressing the issue politically, and only slightly has progress been made socially.
The book suffers, in my view, from a couple of problems, one Schaeffer's fault and one not. First, the issue not his fault, is simply how dated the book is, being written in another inauguration year, that of Ronald Reagan's first term. The datedness of the book obviously hampers some of its applicability today, particularly in Schaeffer's recommendations for action, though it does also lend a curious charm to the book and reminds the reader that the problems Christians face today are not new. The other problem is one that many evangelical books of this type have, which is that it's just not very historically, politically, or socially sophisticated outside of a specifically Reformed point of view (which is in itself very useful). Why Schaeffer and the evangelicals of the day didn't attach their movement to the longer-standing traditionalist conservatives, who had been fighting these intellectual battles for decades by this point, is hard to understand, particularly since there was considerable benefit to be had by both sides from the perspectives of the other.
The most interesting, and probably controversial, part of the book is Schaeffer's case for civil disobedience against tyranny, up to and including the right of self-defense. He attaches this case to the historical Reformed tradition stretching from William Tyndale and John Knox to Samuel Rutherford through to the American Revolution (Schaeffer mentions John Witherspoon by name, but as Mark David Hall has noted in Roger Sherman and the Creation of the American Republic, a significant majority of the founding generation had roots in Reformed political theory, which includes resistance to tyrants). No doubt the denizens of the online evangelical world today would scoff and proclaim horror at Schaeffer's thoughts along these lines, and I have my own Burkean reservations despite Schaeffer's attempt to distinguish between self-defense and revolution, but his points along these lines are well considered, and are certainly not less pertinent in a culture that now demands that we not only look the other way when it violates human life, but also demands Christians' acquiescence in a whole host of other rejections of God's moral law.
So while A Christian Manifesto has not aged as well as some of his other works, we could use a healthy injection into modern Christianity of Schaeffer's passion for boldly proclaiming and standing for the truth. Sadly, the malady that he identifies, of Christians being unwilling and unprepared to apply biblical truth to their entire worldviews persists in our day.
February 24, 2020
I did like parts of this book, but I was rather disappointed by most of it. I like how he identified humanism as the root of our culture’s disintegration. It just could have gone more into depth as to the only real substitute is a personal relationship with Jesus. Instead, it talks about how we Christians should fight for the maintenance of Christian morals in the public square almost as if we could convince the world to want to live by them. So the final part of the book is about using any means from legislation to civil disobedience to advance the rights of Christians in our nation.
But divorced from an equal or more overwhelming presentation of the Gospel, don’t protests, lawsuits, and legislation leave culture basically the same. A culture can be made pretty on the outside, but without salvation on a personal level, it is still going to hell. He mentions the national revivals that have brought such blessing to our country in past years but focuses more on the political/social action taken by their leaders than on their message of personal redemption from sin. Truly they did transform society. No, actually it was God’s message through them that changed society one person at a time. But – it wasn’t their first goal to change their society. They longed to snatch souls from hell by salvation in Christ. The resulting blessings came as people individually sought God’s will and way in their lives. Without that personal salvation, all we are doing is asking sinners, who are constitutionally opposed to God and His Law, to live as the Holy Spirit empowered redeemed.
Isaac Massey Haldeman said it so well in Why I Preach the Second Coming, “ There are good and righteous Christians—righteous enough but wholly unspiritual who are seeking to make spotless town of a world God has judged and doomed, failing to see the cross is not only the judgment of the individual but equally the judgment of the world; that not only does the cross reveal the end of all flesh but the end in God’s sight of that system of things which men call the world; that on the cross the world is crucified to the Christian and the Christian to the world; and failing to see this, failing to get the mind of God are daily descending to the plane of the natural man, are losing and in many cases deliberately setting aside the testimony once for all delivered to the saints. Without warning, they will be snatched away to meet a descending Lord (if they are real and regenerated Christians) and this alone because their faith be it never so small holds them securely in the bonds of the covenant. After that, the Lord will be revealed in flaming fire to execute judgment on the world and all the works of misguided social reformers because these works are built, not upon the righteousness of God, but the righteousness of man.”
But divorced from an equal or more overwhelming presentation of the Gospel, don’t protests, lawsuits, and legislation leave culture basically the same. A culture can be made pretty on the outside, but without salvation on a personal level, it is still going to hell. He mentions the national revivals that have brought such blessing to our country in past years but focuses more on the political/social action taken by their leaders than on their message of personal redemption from sin. Truly they did transform society. No, actually it was God’s message through them that changed society one person at a time. But – it wasn’t their first goal to change their society. They longed to snatch souls from hell by salvation in Christ. The resulting blessings came as people individually sought God’s will and way in their lives. Without that personal salvation, all we are doing is asking sinners, who are constitutionally opposed to God and His Law, to live as the Holy Spirit empowered redeemed.
Isaac Massey Haldeman said it so well in Why I Preach the Second Coming, “ There are good and righteous Christians—righteous enough but wholly unspiritual who are seeking to make spotless town of a world God has judged and doomed, failing to see the cross is not only the judgment of the individual but equally the judgment of the world; that not only does the cross reveal the end of all flesh but the end in God’s sight of that system of things which men call the world; that on the cross the world is crucified to the Christian and the Christian to the world; and failing to see this, failing to get the mind of God are daily descending to the plane of the natural man, are losing and in many cases deliberately setting aside the testimony once for all delivered to the saints. Without warning, they will be snatched away to meet a descending Lord (if they are real and regenerated Christians) and this alone because their faith be it never so small holds them securely in the bonds of the covenant. After that, the Lord will be revealed in flaming fire to execute judgment on the world and all the works of misguided social reformers because these works are built, not upon the righteousness of God, but the righteousness of man.”
December 15, 2020
I read this last year and thought it was disappointing. After reading all of Schaeffer this year (this is the last book in his Completed Works), I thought that perhaps I’d appreciate this more—that, since I understand Schaeffer more, I’d see more where he was coming from and be grateful for his perspective. But alas, I think I disliked it even more this year! It was thoroughly disappointing. That’s why I gave it a mere 2 stars this time.
In short, here’s why: Schaeffer is much better than this. This isn’t him (or at least, it doesn’t sound like him from all his other books). The first few chapters of this book are classic Schaeffer with excellent points about worldview, the importance of truth, and the results of different views of reality. Amen and amen. But then, he switches. All of the sudden, Schaeffer starts acting as if all is lost and the church has to start politically and culturally changing people’s worldviews or else it could get really bad. In this, he starts talking about civil disobedience, comparing it to war-like Protestant revolutions in the past. Then his final appeal is to take advantage of the conservative political revolution at the time, but also to realize that it is going to take more and more political fighting, picketing, and such.
The book wouldn’t be so bad if his argument was that, because of the materialistic worldview that is dominating, we have to be ever more diligent to be the church, to preach the gospel, to love people well. That I 100% agree with; and that is typical Schaeffer. But instead, the argument here was that, because of the materialistic worldview that is dominating, we must enter the political sphere and change it! Such a view is shallow as to how worldviews change; it is, I believe, not biblical; and it misses that it is the gospel and conversion that changes not only individuals but society.
So overall, very disappointing. I will recommend you read every Schaeffer book (even his not as impressive ones), but this I wouldn’t recommend.
In short, here’s why: Schaeffer is much better than this. This isn’t him (or at least, it doesn’t sound like him from all his other books). The first few chapters of this book are classic Schaeffer with excellent points about worldview, the importance of truth, and the results of different views of reality. Amen and amen. But then, he switches. All of the sudden, Schaeffer starts acting as if all is lost and the church has to start politically and culturally changing people’s worldviews or else it could get really bad. In this, he starts talking about civil disobedience, comparing it to war-like Protestant revolutions in the past. Then his final appeal is to take advantage of the conservative political revolution at the time, but also to realize that it is going to take more and more political fighting, picketing, and such.
The book wouldn’t be so bad if his argument was that, because of the materialistic worldview that is dominating, we have to be ever more diligent to be the church, to preach the gospel, to love people well. That I 100% agree with; and that is typical Schaeffer. But instead, the argument here was that, because of the materialistic worldview that is dominating, we must enter the political sphere and change it! Such a view is shallow as to how worldviews change; it is, I believe, not biblical; and it misses that it is the gospel and conversion that changes not only individuals but society.
So overall, very disappointing. I will recommend you read every Schaeffer book (even his not as impressive ones), but this I wouldn’t recommend.
October 16, 2019
Not one of Schaeffer’s best. Nevertheless, still an interesting read.
The good: I loved his overarching point—which he emphasized right away in the first chapter, and which emphasized once again to conclude the book—that the biggest problem in our government today is the change from a Christian worldview (even if many who held it weren’t actually Christian themselves) to a materialistic view of final reality. He explains throughout the book, but especially at the bookends, how this necessarily impacts society, government, and laws. He points out that we often see things in bits in pieces, while we need to see the whole—the total worldview shift that is the root cause.
This is spot on, and classic Schaeffer. It’s a proper diagnosis.
The not-as-good: But then, for the majority of the book, Schaeffer I think, at least for me, gets too theoretical, political, and less biblical. He basically advocates for the Moral Majority, more than I ever would. I of course agree with him on the issue of abortion (which is the main issue he brings up again and again in the book), but he sometimes over-emphasizes the early days of America and the founding Fathers.
Overall, it was an interesting read. But I do *not* recommend it as a book from Schaeffer you should read until you’ve read a lot of others by him. It still wet my palate for him once again, and so I’m considering reading through his Collected Works perhaps next year. But basically are the other book by him are much better and to the point—on this one, he seemed to get a little off-track and become too political. I’m still glad I read it.
The good: I loved his overarching point—which he emphasized right away in the first chapter, and which emphasized once again to conclude the book—that the biggest problem in our government today is the change from a Christian worldview (even if many who held it weren’t actually Christian themselves) to a materialistic view of final reality. He explains throughout the book, but especially at the bookends, how this necessarily impacts society, government, and laws. He points out that we often see things in bits in pieces, while we need to see the whole—the total worldview shift that is the root cause.
This is spot on, and classic Schaeffer. It’s a proper diagnosis.
The not-as-good: But then, for the majority of the book, Schaeffer I think, at least for me, gets too theoretical, political, and less biblical. He basically advocates for the Moral Majority, more than I ever would. I of course agree with him on the issue of abortion (which is the main issue he brings up again and again in the book), but he sometimes over-emphasizes the early days of America and the founding Fathers.
Overall, it was an interesting read. But I do *not* recommend it as a book from Schaeffer you should read until you’ve read a lot of others by him. It still wet my palate for him once again, and so I’m considering reading through his Collected Works perhaps next year. But basically are the other book by him are much better and to the point—on this one, he seemed to get a little off-track and become too political. I’m still glad I read it.
January 26, 2024
Great exercise in carrying secular/materialistic humanism to its logical end, and great insights on the need for replacing modern cultural lunacy with Christian alternatives. I really wish I'd known about Schaeffer in high school, college, seminary, and early ministry. One of my favorite quotes:
"We have been utterly foolish in our concentration on bits and pieces, and in our complete failure to face the total world view that is rooted in a false view of reality. And we have not understood that this view of reality inevitably brings forth totally different and wrong and inhuman results in all of life."
"We have been utterly foolish in our concentration on bits and pieces, and in our complete failure to face the total world view that is rooted in a false view of reality. And we have not understood that this view of reality inevitably brings forth totally different and wrong and inhuman results in all of life."
October 10, 2024
Este libro es un llamado a los creyentes a combatir con otra cosmovisión, el humanismo, que sostiene que el fin último de las cosas es el hombre, la materia o la energía impersonal. Es un llamado a despertarnos, que los cristianos tienen que manifestar que el fin último de las cosas es Dios, que no hay nada encima de la ley de Dios, todas las realidades deben sujetarse a Dios. En este libro encontrarás de una manera práctica como debemos combatir.
Totalmente recomendado📚🔥
Totalmente recomendado📚🔥
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 30, 2021
Francis, you ain't seen nothin' yet...but you've foreseen with remarkable prescience.
Can't remember what I listened to recently by David Cochran Heath, but I think I didn't care for him on that one. Liked his work here better.
Can't remember what I listened to recently by David Cochran Heath, but I think I didn't care for him on that one. Liked his work here better.
November 30, 2021
Great. A response to the Humanist Manifesto, but it's a really good treatise on how Christianity ought to impact society
January 31, 2021
Excellent little book and timely for Christians today.
November 18, 2024
Nothing bad per se—just not “manifesto” either.
Schaeffer was the court-intellectual of the evangelical-right/moral-majority…basically the smartest person in an intellectually bankrupt movement, which isn’t saying much.
Schaeffer was the court-intellectual of the evangelical-right/moral-majority…basically the smartest person in an intellectually bankrupt movement, which isn’t saying much.
February 1, 2021
In this manifesto, Schaeffer offers a primer on the religious foundations of American government, how these foundations of faith and freedom have been eroded, and the forms that appropriate civil disobedience might take. Schaeffer predicted (in 1981) the potential for a “technocratic elite” that would soon rule America. After seeing the cultural decline in America, due to casting off religion and taking on a materialistic worldview, Schaeffer sets up the flash point: “we must realize the possibilities of such an elite if the masses do not get their ‘economic numbers.’” When the American populace is hollowed out, having no religious commitments and lacking self-government, they turn to utilitarian standards. Our culture serves the gods of “personal peace and affluence.” And from here we see how the majority of the people will give up its freedom in order to secure material prosperity.
Schaeffer locates the solution in thinking “to the bottom line as our forefathers did.” To do this we must recognize the boundaries of civil authority. The state is to be obeyed as a servant of God (Romans 13:1-4). But, “God has ordained the state as delegated authority.” Its authority comes from God’s charge—to restrain evil and to protect the good (Romans 13:1-4 and 1 Peter 2:13-17). “When it does the reverse, it has no proper authority. It is then a usurped authority and as such it becomes lawless and is tyranny.” He cites examples from church history of civil disobedience, often at great personal costs (and at times martyrdom). He then highlights the theology of resistance developed by John Knox and Samuel Rutherford, who both asserted that Christians have a moral obligation to resist tyranny as a perversion of God’s law.
The main thesis is that we must have a bottom line—“at a certain point there is not only the right, but the duty, to disobey the state.” “If there is no place for civil disobedience, then the government has been made autonomous, and as such, it has been put in the place of the Living God.” Schaeffer ends with an apt exhortation from Scripture: “Wake up! Strengthen the things which remain, that are about to die, for I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God.”
This is an important little book, but it is not adequate in itself. It seems to have been meant as a spark and to provoke further discussion, and it does a good job at that. But, it treads into areas (such as civil disobedience) which require very careful thinking. This is a grave matter and has potential for great abuse, which gives me concern in how the topic is presented here. Many great theologians in the reformed tradition have held different positions on the limits of civil obedience. While this subject requires our attention at times like this, I worry that the brief sketch offered here may be dangerously narrow.
Schaeffer locates the solution in thinking “to the bottom line as our forefathers did.” To do this we must recognize the boundaries of civil authority. The state is to be obeyed as a servant of God (Romans 13:1-4). But, “God has ordained the state as delegated authority.” Its authority comes from God’s charge—to restrain evil and to protect the good (Romans 13:1-4 and 1 Peter 2:13-17). “When it does the reverse, it has no proper authority. It is then a usurped authority and as such it becomes lawless and is tyranny.” He cites examples from church history of civil disobedience, often at great personal costs (and at times martyrdom). He then highlights the theology of resistance developed by John Knox and Samuel Rutherford, who both asserted that Christians have a moral obligation to resist tyranny as a perversion of God’s law.
The main thesis is that we must have a bottom line—“at a certain point there is not only the right, but the duty, to disobey the state.” “If there is no place for civil disobedience, then the government has been made autonomous, and as such, it has been put in the place of the Living God.” Schaeffer ends with an apt exhortation from Scripture: “Wake up! Strengthen the things which remain, that are about to die, for I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God.”
This is an important little book, but it is not adequate in itself. It seems to have been meant as a spark and to provoke further discussion, and it does a good job at that. But, it treads into areas (such as civil disobedience) which require very careful thinking. This is a grave matter and has potential for great abuse, which gives me concern in how the topic is presented here. Many great theologians in the reformed tradition have held different positions on the limits of civil obedience. While this subject requires our attention at times like this, I worry that the brief sketch offered here may be dangerously narrow.
June 14, 2013
This was my first taste of Schaeffer and I liked what I got pretty much. To be fair the book is a bit dated as it is commententing on 1982 political themes and situations. But the influx of humanism was starting to peak in the 1980s and we can see today the political climate and world view of the state and humanism from when it peaked.
This was my first political book that started with a worldview assumption. The worldview here being of Christianity. Schaeffer makes his point for Christianity (of course) and the reason why humanism has no firm foundation. This book is a response to humanism and its manifestos over the last century. It's nice to see a political book stating that "by what system you interpret facts and what basic views you hold determine what decisions you make".
My favorite part of the book was the part I've been thinking over for some time. As an American and libertarian (in political thought), Romans 13 has always been a struggle for me. The book is great on three chapters concerning this subject "The Limits of Civil Obedience", "The Use Of Civil Disobedience", and "The Use Of Force". The thrust is that Christians are called to obey the lawful ruling authority in as such time it tells us to violate what God's Word says. The latter chapters deal with degrees of resistance. It also ties in examples such as the Reformation and the Revolutionary War, among others.
Schaeffer seems to have a good grasp on presuppositional arguementation and application of God's Word. My biggest flaw with this book is how little Scripture is used to support specific points. While there is some which are well used. There is more adherence to Samuel Rutherford's "Lex Red" which may indeed have more and he is pointing to that work for specifics. After all, this is a manifesto not an apology. Final Grade - B
This was my first political book that started with a worldview assumption. The worldview here being of Christianity. Schaeffer makes his point for Christianity (of course) and the reason why humanism has no firm foundation. This book is a response to humanism and its manifestos over the last century. It's nice to see a political book stating that "by what system you interpret facts and what basic views you hold determine what decisions you make".
My favorite part of the book was the part I've been thinking over for some time. As an American and libertarian (in political thought), Romans 13 has always been a struggle for me. The book is great on three chapters concerning this subject "The Limits of Civil Obedience", "The Use Of Civil Disobedience", and "The Use Of Force". The thrust is that Christians are called to obey the lawful ruling authority in as such time it tells us to violate what God's Word says. The latter chapters deal with degrees of resistance. It also ties in examples such as the Reformation and the Revolutionary War, among others.
Schaeffer seems to have a good grasp on presuppositional arguementation and application of God's Word. My biggest flaw with this book is how little Scripture is used to support specific points. While there is some which are well used. There is more adherence to Samuel Rutherford's "Lex Red" which may indeed have more and he is pointing to that work for specifics. After all, this is a manifesto not an apology. Final Grade - B
June 28, 2020
Francis Schaeffer was thinking well ahead of his time when he first penned this work. In this short volume he highlights the depth of depravity in man, and how that will be played out in society of Christians don’t act. When Schaeffer first wrote this he focused on this issues of abortion, the humanist movement regarding cultural Marxism, and the sexual revolution. I found myself shocked that these issues are the same that we are fighting against in the church today. The most convicting part of this book was Schaeffer’s reference to how if the church fails to be the salt and light of the world, then our society and culture will only drift farther and farther into a depraved state. Self reflection has me wondering if we are now starting to see the fruit of the church’s failure in this area. Church leaders and lay people alike should invest in this book as we seek to be the salt and light of the world.
February 8, 2020
Schaeffer's manifesto is a call to action for those who hold a Judeo-Christian belief. The first part of the manifesto is to awaken us to the liberal humanism that was (now has) taking over western thought and law. The middle of the book deals with more specific cases and reasons for personal, or organizational resilience to the inhumanity of humanism; The last couple of chapters act as a summary and application that cuts across the last 50 years into our present age. The thought lines, and many of the applications, are still very needed among thoughtful resilient believer's today.
March 14, 2010
Excellent! Prophetic (written in 1981).
From the beginning: "The basic problem of the Christians in this country in the last eighty years or so, in regard to society and in regard to government, is that they have seen things in bits and pieces instead of totals."
Shows how the secular, humanist worldview is antithetical to the Christian worldview, and demonstrates the moral, political, and legal consequences which flow from each worldview.
From the beginning: "The basic problem of the Christians in this country in the last eighty years or so, in regard to society and in regard to government, is that they have seen things in bits and pieces instead of totals."
Shows how the secular, humanist worldview is antithetical to the Christian worldview, and demonstrates the moral, political, and legal consequences which flow from each worldview.
September 27, 2020
I think everyone, regardless of faith background, should read this just about immediately before America is fully overrun by totalitarianism, tyranny, and communism. Let us give future generations a blessing by arising now before America turns to full blown communism and persecution. Freedom is not typical worldwide. There are reasons for that, and we’re faltering quickly.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 257 reviews