web site hit counter A Christian Manifesto - Ebooks PDF Online
Hot Best Seller

A Christian Manifesto

Availability: Ready to download

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 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.


Compare

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 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.

30 review for A Christian Manifesto

  1. 5 out of 5

    An Idler

    Hmm, what to say. Love Schaeffer's thought process, insight, and writing style. Love the man. This past year I've been trying to figure out my position on the relationship between church (which church?) and state, and the role of Christians as private persons in Christ living as citizens in the state - specifically the US, heavily influenced as it is by centuries of Judeo-Christian culture. I've been driven toward Two Kingdoms by the shallow and left-leaning public policy views of certain celebri Hmm, what to say. Love Schaeffer's thought process, insight, and writing style. Love the man. This past year I've been trying to figure out my position on the relationship between church (which church?) and state, and the role of Christians as private persons in Christ living as citizens in the state - specifically the US, heavily influenced as it is by centuries of Judeo-Christian culture. I've been driven toward Two Kingdoms by the shallow and left-leaning public policy views of certain celebrity preachers - I want a theological reason for them to keep quiet about politics and preach the gospel. Therefore I've been reading a lot of Michael Horton and D. G. Hart. But they seem to advocate a kind of "radical" Two Kingdoms that just doesn't square in my mind and what I read the Bible and what I see in history. But on the other hand, Schaeffer is more transformational - like Keller et al. but with his priorities straight and more conservative instead of East coast metropolitan liberal. He makes that argument here. It's dated, since the Moral Majority has long since been six feet under and the conservative renaissance of 1980 (the "open window" for moral and worldview reform) began to slow after 2001 and collapsed in 2009. That lends the book a poignant air. If Schaeffer could see 2018, based on this book he would say we lost. Still, Schaeffer has put his foot in the door and kept me open minded. I'll probably check out the more reserved form of 2k (in contrast to the radical kind of Horton/Hart) advocated by the magisterial reformers, mainly Calvin. That issue aside - wow, it's great to be reading Schaeffer again.

  2. 5 out of 5

    John Yelverton

    A fantastic read that is sadly necessary to combat those who downplay this belief instead of respecting it as a legitimate philosophy on life.

  3. 4 out of 5

    Aaron Ventura

    Very good. The sections on civil disobedience, force, and protest are timely. He does fumble the ball when it comes to religious liberty and theocracy. Schaeffer is of the mind that church/state relations of the Constantinian variety were a huge mistake; he is wrong. Despite referencing Rutherford's Lex Rex many times, Schaeffer wants a free market of ideas in which Protestantism can win by persuasion alone and not force. Here he fails to apply his own principles (Christ's Lordship) to what a Ch Very good. The sections on civil disobedience, force, and protest are timely. He does fumble the ball when it comes to religious liberty and theocracy. Schaeffer is of the mind that church/state relations of the Constantinian variety were a huge mistake; he is wrong. Despite referencing Rutherford's Lex Rex many times, Schaeffer wants a free market of ideas in which Protestantism can win by persuasion alone and not force. Here he fails to apply his own principles (Christ's Lordship) to what a Christian government should look like. Still a good book worth reading right now!

  4. 5 out of 5

    Tony Smith

    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.

  5. 5 out of 5

    David Sarkies

    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 partic 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.

  6. 4 out of 5

    Yibbie

    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 mea 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.”

  7. 5 out of 5

    Ryan Hawkins

    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 im 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.

  8. 5 out of 5

    Christian Barrett

    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 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.

  9. 5 out of 5

    John Dube

    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).

  10. 4 out of 5

    Joshua Samsoondar

    Schaeffer has some brilliant writing here, still relevant almost 40 years later.

  11. 4 out of 5

    Patrick S.

    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 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

  12. 4 out of 5

    Gus Stevens

    This "manifesto" is the philosophical justification for the Moral Majority that seemed plausible in the 80s but, when read in 2012, the parochial and selective nostalgia of the book becomes quite obvious. The author pines for a religious revival that will manifest itself in the American legal system, particularly in reference to abortion, but he refuses to concede that what he is advocating is a theocratic system or in any way an establishment of a state religion. In fact, Schaeffer would prefer This "manifesto" is the philosophical justification for the Moral Majority that seemed plausible in the 80s but, when read in 2012, the parochial and selective nostalgia of the book becomes quite obvious. The author pines for a religious revival that will manifest itself in the American legal system, particularly in reference to abortion, but he refuses to concede that what he is advocating is a theocratic system or in any way an establishment of a state religion. In fact, Schaeffer would prefer a return to a "Christian" society, in which Christianity, and a moral system based upon it, are the visible and present norm rather than an embarrassing and abandoned memory. While I would agree with Schaeffer on his central point of application (that the practice of human abortion should be abolished), I am unwilling to say that the means of doing so is to enforce a christian moral sentiment upon a largely post-christian (and unregenerate) culture. The social duty of the Christian is not, as Schaeffer insinuates, to establish a christian culture that holds back the darkness of voluntary sin, but to protect victims from the actions of others. I think that we can still agree with our non-christian neighbors that victims ought to be protected from harm; now we simply need to convince them that the unborn are humans worthy of such protection and that such protections should be codified into law.

  13. 4 out of 5

    Gregory

    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.

  14. 5 out of 5

    Eric

    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...

  15. 5 out of 5

    Larry Taylor

    if taken to its logical conclusion, we'd be blowing up abortion clinics behind pat robertson riding a white steed

  16. 4 out of 5

    Douglas Wilson

    Excellent. Also read in December of 1981.

  17. 5 out of 5

    Aaron

    In the first half of his book, Schaeffer offers an excellent and important critique of the Secular Humanist State that has assumed control of these United States - and makes a compelling argument for how they were wrested from the hands of a generally Christian nation. The book is worth its weight in gold just for this criticism. In the next half of the book, Schaeffer makes an argument for the use of force by Christians (as not only a constitutional right, but a moral obligation) in the face of In the first half of his book, Schaeffer offers an excellent and important critique of the Secular Humanist State that has assumed control of these United States - and makes a compelling argument for how they were wrested from the hands of a generally Christian nation. The book is worth its weight in gold just for this criticism. In the next half of the book, Schaeffer makes an argument for the use of force by Christians (as not only a constitutional right, but a moral obligation) in the face of such atrocities committed by the Secular State as abortion. He defines this use of force in the last 3 or 4 chapters in various forms, the lightest of which is civil disobedience (through the two well-defined forms of protest and political-economic pressure) and the weightiest of which is revolution. He points out that this last option is only to be considered when all other options (such as civil disobedience and simply fleeing) have been exhausted or are impossible. Here's where I got a bit chaffed with Schaeffer. Although his argument is compelling regarding the 'constitutional right' to remake the United States when its governance is defined by oppression (even through the means of violent force he ascribes), I thought it strange that (for all his talk about founding our beliefs and activities on the Scriptures) he did not (or one might venture, 'could not') prove this point biblically. In fact, in order to seriously consider Shaeffer's biblical alternative, I was hoping that he would treat 1 Peter more. The only passages he really addressed were 1 Peter 2:13-18 and Romans 13. But what about the rest of 1 Peter? All of chapters 2-4 seem to argue quite the opposite. I think he makes his point about civil disobedience forcefully and compellingly, but in this last point about the use of force (second to last chapter), I was simply not convinced - well, perhaps constitutionally and philosophically, but not biblically at least. I would be interested to see if Schaeffer ever addressed the rest of 1 Peter. Regardless, excellent book and I would highly recommend to every Christian!

  18. 5 out of 5

    Gary

    Some disjointed thoughts: There are some great principles set forth in here, and I agree with most of it, but somehow my high expectations were not realized. I definitely welcomed discussion of Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex. If I had read it in the 1980s (had I been old enough then to do so!) I think it would have struck me more powerfully. As it is, it is slightly dated now, and I feel the good folk at The Calvinist International and The Davenant Trust are offering a more developed reformational p Some disjointed thoughts: There are some great principles set forth in here, and I agree with most of it, but somehow my high expectations were not realized. I definitely welcomed discussion of Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex. If I had read it in the 1980s (had I been old enough then to do so!) I think it would have struck me more powerfully. As it is, it is slightly dated now, and I feel the good folk at The Calvinist International and The Davenant Trust are offering a more developed reformational position. Still, we can all learn from his call to action. Also, Doug Wilson has clearly read this book! Perhaps in the 1980s! And I think he has said much of it better than the author, which is probably mostly why it disappointed. Liked it.

  19. 4 out of 5

    Bradley Somers

    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 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.

  20. 5 out of 5

    Ben Perley

    A good, sharp primer on Christianity and civil disobedience. Almost as applicable now as when it was written nearly forty years ago. Recommended. QOTB: “If there is no final 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.”

  21. 5 out of 5

    Becky

    First sentence: 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. Worldview. Every single person has one, whether or not they know the scholarly name for their particular worldview or not. What is your worldview? Can you distinguish between the Christian worldview and the other worldviews that are battling it out for dominance? Can you distinguish First sentence: 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. Worldview. Every single person has one, whether or not they know the scholarly name for their particular worldview or not. What is your worldview? Can you distinguish between the Christian worldview and the other worldviews that are battling it out for dominance? Can you distinguish between the genuine and the counterfeit? (This book, in particular, is all about the HUMANIST world view.) When you watch the news, read a book, read an article, listen to the radio, talk with friends, can you discern ideas, principles, agendas? Do you recognize bias? Do you blend worldviews? Are you standing on solid ground or sinking sand? Are you good at seeing the big picture, the total picture? Are you able to see where ideas lead? All ideas have consequences--some good, some bad. Was A Christian Manifesto needed in 1981? I'm going to guess that yes, yes it was. Is it needed in 2019? A qualified yes. Yes, the thematic messages--the central points--are still very much relevant. In fact, I don't think you'd be out of line if you argued that today more than any other, the heart of this message needs to be proclaimed everywhere--time and time and time and time again. Because believers can be slow to hear, slow to understand, slow to respond. It's like this: react too strongly and you're accused of being a Chicken Little. You watch the news, read an article, hear a snippet of video...rush out and proclaim THIS IS IT! CHRISTIANITY IS IN DANGER! THESE ARE THE LAST DAYS! I'M NOT FOOLING AROUND, LIFE AS WE KNOW IT IS GOING TO BE OVER! The other extreme is to be so slow to react, so slow to respond, that the so-called battle is in the history books before you've even gotten out of your easy chair to look for your spiritual armor. To live the Christian life is to be awake, be aware, to see that there aren't two realms--the secular one and the spiritual one--but one realm. The gospel should impact, inform, effect ALL of one's life. Living for Christ means living all of life for Christ--in Christ. We are not called to sleep, to slumber our way through the days--last days or not. Some sections are quite timeless, others are very much dated to a specific time and place. The focus in specifics is on politics and law. Quotes: True spirituality covers all of reality...The Lordship of Christ covers all of life and all of life equally... There is nothing concerning reality that is not spiritual. (19) Christianity is not just a series of truths but Truth--Truth about all of reality. (20)

  22. 5 out of 5

    Jessica

    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.

  23. 4 out of 5

    Jeremy

    Adapted from this book. Adapted from this book.

  24. 5 out of 5

    Timothy Decker

    Timely in 1980 when first written, and 40 years later, even more so!!!

  25. 4 out of 5

    Daniel

    A short read. Typically Schaeffer in its integration of philosophy, history, etc. I found his clarity on worldview and the totality of the modern worldview (the child of the Enlightenment and late 19th century) with the focus on this material vs the totality of the Christian worldview particularly helpful. Written in the early 80s, the wake of the Roe vs Wade is clear in the clarion call throughout against abortion. The book is essentially divided up into 3 or so segments: the competing worldvie A short read. Typically Schaeffer in its integration of philosophy, history, etc. I found his clarity on worldview and the totality of the modern worldview (the child of the Enlightenment and late 19th century) with the focus on this material vs the totality of the Christian worldview particularly helpful. Written in the early 80s, the wake of the Roe vs Wade is clear in the clarion call throughout against abortion. The book is essentially divided up into 3 or so segments: the competing worldviews of modern materialism vs Christanity, the history of the United States founding and the legacy of the Reformation and civil disobedience among Christians, and then a framework for civil disobedience for Christians shaped by Rutherford's "Lex Rex" and the ideas of the founding fathers of the United States. Worth the read and insightful/prophetic in many of the ways our society has developed since.

  26. 4 out of 5

    Magda

    From a writing standpoint, it's well-written. From a 'do I agree with it ?' standpoint, my feelings are mixed. All of his points are valid, yet with many of them I do not agree. Grossly speaking, it's a manifesto, inherently dogmatic as a genre. Easy to read, though. I appreciated how Schaeffer pointed out that it is because of Jesus' death on the cross and his message of justice for all humanity that the US's political system has validity : justice is something fixed and equal for all, not based From a writing standpoint, it's well-written. From a 'do I agree with it ?' standpoint, my feelings are mixed. All of his points are valid, yet with many of them I do not agree. Grossly speaking, it's a manifesto, inherently dogmatic as a genre. Easy to read, though. I appreciated how Schaeffer pointed out that it is because of Jesus' death on the cross and his message of justice for all humanity that the US's political system has validity : justice is something fixed and equal for all, not based on current moods. Also good : that political involvment does not equal political violence. And : spiritual salvation is to go hand-in-hand with social action for justice and better conditions for all. Elsewhere, though, the insistence that the US political system is to be held as the universal standard, and that this as a political system should be immutable, were less realistic. (God is above the government, yes, but God does not mandate a decentralised government, for example.)

  27. 4 out of 5

    Bob Ladwig

    People have mixed feeling about this book, I think because most Christians have a rather mechanical view of Romans 13 and the relation between the Christian and the state. It seems most Christians apply Rom 13 rather woodenly and fail to contextualize both Paul's day and ours. Schaeffer points out that the grounds for Christian disobedience to the state is much greater than just preaching issues and this is where most Christian wince. I found the book extremely helpful in forming and understandi People have mixed feeling about this book, I think because most Christians have a rather mechanical view of Romans 13 and the relation between the Christian and the state. It seems most Christians apply Rom 13 rather woodenly and fail to contextualize both Paul's day and ours. Schaeffer points out that the grounds for Christian disobedience to the state is much greater than just preaching issues and this is where most Christian wince. I found the book extremely helpful in forming and understanding of the proper role of government and Christian duty in relation to government. I don't give it a 5 star because the book needs more clarity, it lays some good ground rules for understanding tyranny, this both can be expanded but also I think a strategy for responding Christianly to tyranny, I think he should have leaned on Calvin more here.

  28. 4 out of 5

    Scott

    This is a good book for anyone wondering how a Christian is to interact with the government. In some ways, it is dated because it was written in the early 80's, but it is amazing how much of what he discusses is coming to fruition. I would recommend this book to everyone who is looking for a balanced understanding of how a Christian is duty bound to support and hold their government accountable.

  29. 5 out of 5

    Cheryl

    I read this book in college and it was horrible. The writing was bad, the arguments lacked logical cohesion. I agreed with a lot of his positions (although not all), but the tone, style, diction, and syntax made it all but unreadable.

  30. 4 out of 5

    Patrick

    I'm not sure if I'll like this book or not, so I'm a little nervous to read it. :-) It was, however, only 50 cents at Goodwill, so I figure it was a bargain. ;-)

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.