When Jesus told his disciples to turn the other cheek (Matt. 5:39), did he have in mind an absolute commitment to non-violence? Or, when Paul told the church in Rome to “be subject to the governing authorities” (Rom. 13:1), did he intend for the church to comply even when church gatherings are outlawed? Or again, when Paul says “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood” (Eph. 6:12) and “the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh,” (2 Cor. 10:4), did he mean that any use of physical force is sin?
These are important questions that must be addressed when considering the use of civil disobedience. Ever a realist, Francis Schaeffer moves to consider the “use of force,” after advancing a principled approach to civil disobedience. Indeed, after citing ways Christians have protested against tyranny in chapter 7, and after offering a three-step approach to civil disobedience in chapter 8, Schaeffer explains how physical force may be necessary if protest fails and flight is denied.
Opening chapter 9, he writes, “There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate. The Christian is not to take the law into his own hands and become a law unto himself. But when all avenues to flight and protest have closed, force in the defensive posture is appropriate” (117).
1. Statism refers to a political system in which the government exercises significant control over social and economic life (which extends into personal and religious life). Unrestrained statism ultimately leads to authoritarian communism, where the state seeks to function like God. In the United States, the power and authority of the government has significantly expanded over the centuries through proliferating regulations, increased taxes, and new federal agencies.
Let the reader understand—Francis Schaeffer is not calling for a type of crusading violence in the name of Jesus. Rather, he is taking seriously the fallen condition of world and the reality of statism,[1] which he saw as a rising threat against the church. From that context, he recalls the way faithful Protestants have stood up for Christ in the face of oppression and persecution, and he gives principles for defending the faith in a world hostile to Christ, his Church, and more generally to humanity itself.
Thus, in what follows I offer a three-point defense of Schaeffer’s rationale for the use of force. Again, Schaeffer does not argue for force to advance the church’s mission. Instead, he calls Christians to defend their place in the world, lest the church cede to the government an unlawful authority. Admittedly, such a consideration of church and state will take more than can be outlined here, but perhaps we can gain a heart of wisdom by sketching a starting point.[2]
2. For a fuller treatment of this issues, see Ken Magnuson’s section on just war in his Invitation to Christian Ethics.
Defending the Use of Defense
Today, there are many Christians who are charmed by pacifist ideals and by antagonism towards the militaristic images of Scripture. Others are more energized by finding abuses of authority instead of celebrating its proper use.[3] In such a context, the idea of Christians using force invites scrutiny and a salvo of objections. However, if we let Scripture dictate our thinking, as Francis Schaeffer did, then we must soberly consider that there are times when Christians are forced to physically defend themselves.
3. Illustrating these points in order, we find Christian leaders following the pacifism of Stanley Hauerwas and John Howard Yoder, we have Kristin Kobes Du Mez chastising the evangelical church for being hyper-masculine, and we see Christian websites “restoring the church” by incessant appeals to scandal.
Historically, this way of thinking can be found among those contemplating Just War Theory,[4] but it is equally relevant today as more than 100 churches, pregnancy care centers, and other ministries have been physically attacked in the last year for their views concerning life. Indeed, while protest and legal petition remain first order, Schaeffer offers a strong theological justification for Christians to physically defend themselves.
4. See, e.g., Arthur F. Holmes, War and Christian Ethics: Classic and Contemporary Readings on the Morality of War.
Citing the American Revolution as “a conservative counter-revolution” (128), he explains how after “a long train of abuses and usurpations,” there is both a “right” and a “duty” . . . “to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” These quotations are not Schaeffer’s, of course, but Thomas Jefferson’s, famously penned in the Declaration of Independence. Nonetheless, Schaeffer rightly argues that this sentiment reflects a Christian principle to defend oneself when flight and protest are not possible.
In Schaeffer’s short manifesto, he does not consider the intricacies of Just War Theory. But the point remains: In cases like the American Revolution or opposing Nazi Germany (his two examples from 117–18), a Christian may use force if there is (1) just cause, (2) right intention(s), (3) legitimate authority, (4) last resort, (5) proportionate objectives, and (6) a reasonable chance of success.[5] Without getting into specifics, Schaeffer cuts to the chase and reminds us that there are times when it “is not only the right, but the duty, to disobey the state” (120).
5. These six points are defined and described by Ken Magnuson’s treatment of just war in his Invitation to Christian Ethics, 440–44.
I suspect Schaeffer’s talk of civil disobedience is discomforting to many. Most are wired to avoid confrontation, and Christians have many biblical texts to support such personal peace-making (Matt. 5:9; Rom. 12:19; Heb. 12:14; Jas. 1:19–21). Yet, it is critical to understand, Schaeffer is not talking here about personal pietism, but public witness. Too often we confuse the two, and thus Christians under the guise of personal holiness fail to address the wickedness brought forth by the state.
Speaking with tremendous sobriety, Schaeffer focuses on the Soviet Union and their idea of man’s “perfectibility.” He says,
The [Soviet] Christians have the opportunity to show that Christ, and the Christian understanding of reality, can, and do, bring forth the “New Man”—not perfectly of course until Christ returns, but still in a substantial way, whereas the Soviets have failed. In order for Christians to show forth the New Man they must demonstrate a positive practice and exhibit a caring Christian community in the group and care beyond the Christian group. But showing forth the New Man also means a standing against the law of the state which would destroy the very things Christians should produce in society. (123)
Here, Schaeffer identifies the way the church presents true humanity, a visible example to counter the world and a verbal proclamation to confront the lost. Schaeffer is pained to offer this counsel, because he knows the cost of following Christ in Communist countries. Yet, convinced by the reality of God and his Word, he calls Christians to confront the state when it encourages the death of the innocent (cf. Prov. 24:10–12)—a practice now taking place in America, as 64 million image bearers have been aborted since 1973.
Defending the Unborn
If education was the focus of chapter 8, abortion becomes central in chapter 9. Christopher Talbot has helpfully shown the way Schaeffer led the Pro-Life movement, and here in this chapter, we see exactly how. Speaking most practically, Schaeffer lays out four things Christians must do to combat abortion. Here are the first three:
First, we should aggressively support a human life bill or a constitutional amendment protecting unborn children. Second, we must enter the courts seeking to overturn the Supreme Court’s abortion decision. Third, legal and political action should be taken against hospitals and abortion clinics that perform abortions. (118)
Reading this today, we should offer praise to God for overturning Roe and crossing out Schaeffer’s second point. We can now focus on his first and third points. To borrow language from chapter 6, there is at present an “open window” for Christians to stand for life in various states, just as they have at the national level.
Indeed, Schaeffer presses for Christians to defend the unborn in his fourth and more comprehensive point, “the State must be made to feel the presence of the Christian community” (120). This, he qualifies, does not mean “we are . . . talking about any kind of theocracy” (120). Nor can we “confuse the Kingdom of God with our country . . . ‘We should not wrap Christianity in our national flag’ ” (121). Rather, we must seek to influence our country with Christian principles, even as we call our governors to account for upholding the founding documents of our country, which were equally influenced by Christian principles.
In January, we will tackle the subject of abortion directly. For now, we can simply say that Schaeffer’s defense of life included a stand against laws and lawmakers that sought to destroy the image of God. In this way, Schaeffer sought to persuade others to defend life. Simultaneously, it is important to distinguish what Schaeffer called for and what he did not. Some abortion opponents have made use of violence to defend life, but Schaeffer does not advocate for this in his chapter, even as he acknowledges the legitimate use of force in other instances.
Defending the Bottom Line
Indeed, this wise use of force leads to an abiding principle: If a tyrannical government begins to steal, kill, and destroy its citizens, Christians—and others—have a duty to withstand such life-taking. While discerning when physical force is needful requires all the elements of just war theory listed above, the point Schaeffer is making is more basic. There is a “bottom line” when it comes to justifying physical force. Alternatively,
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. If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been put in the place of the Living God, because then you are to obey it even when it tells you in its own way at that time to worship Caesar. (130)
This principle of keeping God sovereign over Caesar is simple to state, but difficult to practice. Standing up against the state requires both a heart of wisdom and a backbone of courage. It exceeds the boundaries of this essay to engage this matter fully. Nevertheless, the core principle remains—in a world hostile to Christ, Christians must have a theology of resistance that includes physical force.
On this point, Schaeffer is worth considering, because he honestly assesses the world and its hatred for Christians (see John 15:19–25). While martyrdom is a calling that God gives to some of his elect (Phil. 1:29), such a calling does not mean that Christians cannot pray for, work against, and even organize ways to defend themselves.
What is the alternative to principled physical resistance in the face of governmental tyranny? Is it truly more pious to let a government rip your children away from you for the crime of homeschooling, to let them force your second child to be murdered in the womb at eight months, or to let them rape your sister in a re-education camp? How a Christian responds to such state-endorsed barbarity depends on a host of issues, including the possibility of success. Nevertheless, in some countries, the “bottom line” has been crossed, and resisting the government is a truly pious course of action (Lord have mercy).[6]
6. On the nature of true piety and its public expressions, not personal quietism, see C. R. Wiley, The Household and the War for the Cosmos, 13–30.
In America, where Schaeffer aims his manifesto, there are, by the grace of God, many courses of action short of armed resistance. Still, we would be fooling ourselves if we thought America was impervious to the totalitarianism of other countries.[7] And thus, we too need to remember the bottom line.
7. In America, the Second Amendment has protected liberty by restraining government tyranny. Compare the freedoms of America to the history of abuses following gun confiscation in other countries, and one sees why the Second Amendment has contributed significantly to America’s religious liberty—a liberty that includes the freedom to assemble for worship, the freedom to raise our children as Christians, and the freedom to preach the gospel out loud and in public. The use of force was necessary to found America’s freedoms, and it remains necessary to keep them.
In the end, Schaeffer’s rationale for the use of force is not a full treatment of Christian resistance, but it is a faithful starting point. A Christian Manifesto deals with big ideas, not nuanced specifics. We live in an age of increasing complexity, and Christians need to have biblical categories for both suffering well and protesting wisely. We must recognize that there is a “bottom line,” that any government stepping over that line may require its citizens to make just use of force, and that this may in fact be what most glorifies God.
