This book defined very succinctly for me what the clash in our society is right now. Along with the fact that most people are seeking personal comfort and affluence, to the extent that they are willing to give up many freedoms for the promise of those things, there is a clash of beliefs between those who believe that life is simple random chance with no absolutes and those who believe there is a bottom-line of right from wrong and that that line was drawn by God and therefore cannot be tampered with by man.

The author states the principles found in Lex Rex by Samuel Rutherford, that everyone, whether King or government, is under the rule of law. Unless there are inalienable rights given by an authority above and beyond man and a Law which is above petty interference of the whim of the elite, then law just becomes another tool for tyrants of whatever majority is powerful at the moment.

Mr. Schaeffer makes it clear the principles on which our country was founded; I give you the following quote because he speaks better than I about where our country is headed.
“The result of the original base in the United States (that there is a Truth and we should try to be guided by it) gave the possibility of “liberty and justice for all.” And while it was always far from perfect, it did result in liberty. This included liberty to those who hold other views - views which would not give the freedom. The material-energy, chance view (humanism) has taken advantage of that liberty, supplanted the consensus, and resulted in an intolerance that gives less and less freedom in courts and schools for the view which originally gave the freedoms. Having no base for law, those who hold the humanist view make binding law whatever they personally think is good for society at the moment. This leads increasingly to arbitrary law and rulings which produce chaos in society and which then naturally and increasingly tend to lead to some form of authoritarianism. At that point what the country had in the first place is lost and dead.”

Though this book was written almost thirty years ago, I found it very relevant to today as a guide for Christians and their role in society. It is not enough to just be good, we must also be doing good for the culture around us. Salt and light. ( )

Calls for Christians to return to Biblical truth by allowing Christ to be the Lthe Lord of all in life.

Michael Review:
This book discusses in part how our nation has gone astray from its christian foundation. It discusses how postmodernism has left us with a humanist worldview and how this is increasingly resulting in moral decay. Schaeffer also discusses how christians have sat back too long and let the moral decay continue without making a stand against it. Schaeffer points out for example the decisions concerning abortion in Roe vs. Wade. Schaeffer challenges all christians to stand up and start doing something about it. He does point out as in Romans 13 that God tells us to submit to government authorities but if decisions are morally wrong and against God's word then we are obligated to the Lord to stand up for what is right.

Schaeffer tries to hold the standards high. Describes the gradual shift away from a theist view of the world in which we are "morally accountable" to a materialist view with secular values that dominate our society today. ( )

“The problem always was, and is, what is an adequate base for law?”(pg. 27) Schaeffer’s question is a good one and its one we as Christians have neglected for way to long. It’s a question he answers in this book and answers it with conviction.

Let’s face it, political involvement has always been a struggle in the church. Just how are we to respond to the injustices around us? The opinion has been varied throughout church history running the gambit of public thought on this most important subject. I’ll let you know upfront…if you are a pacifist pass this book on by.

Schaeffer’s first task in this work is to define the fundamental need for Christians to be active in the political process, pitting Truth (Christianity) against humanism. His (totally correct) observation is that humanism is rapidly gaining ground and that this tragic reality will produce a society unable to function due to a lack of foundation. Schaeffer quotes Witherspoon’s prophetic comment “A republic once equally poised must either preserve its virtue or lose its liberty”(pg. 33)…amen to that.

The author has little love for what passes muster for ‘Christianity’ in the States. “Most fundamentally, our culture, society, government, and law are in the condition they are in not because of a conspiracy, but because the church has forsaken its duty to be the salt of the culture.”(pg. 56) He’s not willing to accept defeat though. He states, “We still have it (freedom). And it’s our calling to do something about it and use it in our democracy while we have it.”(pg. 56) But how does he suggest we go about this?!? The second half of the book deals with this touchy subject.

Schaeffer has one simple presupposition; God has sovereignty over all things, therefore the Lordship of Christ is interwoven into everything we are and do. Given that obvious, albeit generally rejected, biblical truth he goes on to wrestle with the issue of what a Christians reply to a society falling to pieces should be. When, if ever, should we participate in civil disobedience? His answer is simple, yet provocative, showing how numb even I (a self-proclaimed ‘radical’) have become.

He is careful to explain that God has ordained the civil governments; he’s not a theonomist nor a reconstructionist. His question is an unadorned one “what is to be done when the state does that which violates its legitimate function?”(pg. 92) Feel yourself blushing? It only get’s rougher. “The bottom line is that at a certain point there is not only the right, but the duty, to disobey the state”(pg. 93) See…I told you. I have a note in the margin from the first time I read through this. It reads, “Hard even for me to accept.” It’s gotten easier.

Schaeffer is not calling for the letting of blood, yet is quick to point out that one day the need might one day be brought upon some to defend themselves at all costs. Are we willing to die for the truth?

His main call is for protest, i.e. legal action, but does not rule out the possible need of force. He explains his point clearly, carefully, and cogently not wanting to be misunderstood, yet his beliefs are unflinching. I’ll end this with a quote that sums it up well, “There would have been no founding of the United States of America without the Founding Fathers’ realization that there is a bottom line. And to them the basic bottom line was not pragmatic; it was one of principle…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.”(pg. 130)

Ponder that one for awhile… ( )