As many observe, the current course of society is headed in a disastrous direction. The moral decline over the past decades has accelerated: abortion up to (possibly after) delivery in some jurisdictions, transgender “rights” and the rejection of human beings as created male or female, critical theory that ignores individual dignity and merit and divides all into “oppressors” and “oppressed,” etc. And now we can add threats to liberty and truth, like arbitrary government lockdowns, government overreach, government censorship, political assassination attempts, and media propaganda and activism that promotes the narratives and policies of one political party. More than merely frustrating, many see these events moving the nation along a trajectory toward statism, where the government has all power and exercises all authority to control every aspect of life.
If that trajectory is true, how should Christians live today? Is some form of statism inevitable? If not, how can we change the current course to avoid such an oppressive end?
In the 1970’s, Francis Schaeffer also observed a breakdown of society throughout the United States and an alarming trajectory toward authoritarianism. He was not alone in that assessment. But as a Christian theologian and philosopher, Schaeffer’s response stands out because of his commitment to the “Lordship of Christ over the whole spectrum of life.”[1] That commitment enabled Schaeffer to make sense of society’s degeneration by connecting it with the loss of the “Christian consensus.”[2] And that connection gave him clarity to see the root problem and the real answer to turn society back to a course for the common good of all humanity and the glory of God.
1. Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005), 63.
2. Historically, the Christian consensus was a broad agreement on fundamental beliefs and ethical principles grounded in Scripture (e.g. the reality of God, divinity of Christ, authority of Scripture, etc.).
For those reasons, Schaeffer’s presentation in the film series “How Should We Then Live?”[3] provides a remarkably accurate analysis of our current situation and a helpful model that Christians can follow as we answer the same question. The discussion below provides a brief description and evaluation of the last two episodes of his film series that focus on the cultural crisis of Schaeffer’s day and his assessment of the alternatives going forward.[4]
3. Francis A. Schaeffer, “How Should We Then Live?” (L’Abri Fellowship, 1977). The film series is an adaptation of his book (originally published in 1976) How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005).
4. As of the date of this article, the entire series is available on YouTube and on Amazon Prime.
“How Should We Then Live?”
In his film series, Schaeffer traces the rise and decline of Western civilization based on the extent to which the various societies embraced or rejected the Christian consensus. After the collapse of Rome, that consensus provided an ethical and moral foundation for society by influencing laws, culture, and social norms throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance and Reformation periods. Yet even then, humanistic elements pulled in the opposite direction by thinking of man as the autonomous center of all things. Beginning with the Enlightenment, that humanistic tendency grew into the dominant philosophy that shaped every aspect of society in the West and slowly eroded the Christian consensus.
In episode nine, Schaeffer focuses on the harmful effects of humanism in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Humanism’s demand for man to be completely autonomous ultimately leads to a complete rejection of instruction from God. Nothing outside the individual or humanity itself is allowed to provide meaning or to answer questions. Such a man-centered worldview is self-destructive because man in himself is not capable of answering the most important questions. Yet by the 1960s, this humanism had been taught in the universities for decades and had seeped into society as the default worldview. As a result, society was left with no objective standard for morality and no satisfying purpose for life. And by the 1970s, society was reduced to the subjective, selfish, and impoverished values of personal peace and affluence. Most people just wanted to be undisturbed—regardless of the consequences to others—and to enjoy a sense of comfort and security found in the accumulation of material possessions. All attempts to escape the resulting despair and apathy from within the same humanistic worldview failed.[5]
5. Schaeffer discusses that the drug culture sought freedom and meaning within the individual, but it self-destructed through addiction and abuse. Many tried eastern religions, but these failed because man in himself cannot produce a transcendent experience of truth and meaning. The Free Speech Movement sought truth and meaning in political expression, but it merged into the New Left and degenerated into violence. And some looked to Marxism/Leninism for a utopian society. Such “communism with a human face,” however, is impossible because communism itself is grounded in a materialism that cannot support the dignity and meaning of the individual, whose only purpose is to support the system, which must be enforced by the oppression of an arbitrary authority.
Schaeffer also warns that, just as humanism cannot ground a meaningful and moral society, it cannot produce an objective and stable system of law. Instead, a man-centered worldview creates “sociological law” that is based on what a dominant group decides is good at any particular time. As the clearest example, Schaeffer points to the new abortion laws of his day that determined a fetus is not a person contrary to legal, medical, and moral precedents. The abortion law changed because the dominant forces in society wanted it. And without first principles or boundaries, such arbitrary law can be used to dominate every minority group of society and abuse its most vulnerable members (e.g. the aged, ill, and insane).
In episode ten, Schaeffer considers the future and alternatives for a society trapped within the humanistic worldview, focused on maintaining their personal peace and affluence, and largely unconcerned with a trajectory toward arbitrary authoritarianism. He focuses on the greatest danger of humanism, which is the lack of an absolute standard. Society cannot function without absolutes. If those absolutes don’t come from God (with the loss of the Christian consensus), Schaeffer explains that an elite group or individual will rise up from within to give arbitrary absolutes to society. That happened with Rome, and in the more recent past, with authoritarian rulers like Hitler and Stalin. But Schaeffer anticipates the authoritarian elite in the United States will come to power not through the exercise of force, but through the influence of manipulation. The elites in government will determine what kind of people and society we should have through laws and policies, and the elites in media will package narratives to present the imposed order as good and true. Whether it comes from the political right or left, the effect will be to silence the minority and manipulate the majority to accept the rules of the elite. Keep in mind, Schaeffer spoke about these things in 1977.
As the manipulation and censorship continues, Schaeffer predicts that a tension between personal liberty and imposed order will reach a breaking point. The Christian consensus provided fundamental freedoms to individuals in the United States. Although that consensus has been eroded, some of those freedoms remain to some degree (freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc.). Yet Schaeffer sees that many of those who support those freedoms and liberties also look to the government to solve the problems in society. He warns that an increase in those problems (e.g. inflation, shortages, terrorism, and the threat of war) will increase the pressure to give up all freedoms and liberties for even the illusion of personal peace and affluence.
At the conclusion of “How Should We Then Live,” Schaeffer sees only two alternatives. If society stays the course, it will fully embrace statism. To avoid that disaster, the only option is for Christians to take both the biblical gospel and the biblical worldview into society for salvation and for the common good of all people. God himself is the only sufficient foundation for society. So a complete rejection of humanism and return to God’s instruction in the Christian consensus is the only hope for humanity.
A Biblical Analysis of the Past for the Present
We can evaluate and appreciate Schaeffer’s film series in general and episodes nine and ten in particular under four headings.
A Biblical Worldview.
Schaeffer’s entire presentation was grounded in a biblical worldview. He looked at the world and the history of Western civilization up to his own day through the lens of Scripture, which gives us God’s authoritative and inerrant view of his own creation and our life in it. In particular, Schaeffer’s analysis was framed by four foundational truths:
1) The existence of God as creator and sustainer of all things;
2) God’s creation of human beings in his own image;
3) The objective reality of truth and a God-given moral order for the good of his creation; and
4) The lordship of Christ in salvation and over all of life.
A Penetrating Analysis.
That biblical worldview enabled Schaeffer to see through the chaos, narratives, and manipulation of his day to rightly identify the root problem of society: the man-centered worldview of humanism. Man does have a unique dignity and extraordinary abilities in this world, but only because God has made man in his own image and for his own purposes. We can live together as a society with great freedoms and prosperity, but only by God’s grace and only according to his foundational principles given for that purpose. In short, the one true God is the one true absolute who alone is capable of providing what is authoritatively, inerrantly, objectively, and universally true and good for a society of human beings. Replacing God with man as the foundation of society is self-destructive because we are finite and fallen.
It is important here to highlight the place of common grace in Schaeffer’s analysis. While not explicit, the four foundational truths of his biblical worldview create a clear conviction that God is caring for all of his fallen image bearers, even short of salvation. Schaeffer rightly understood that a central feature of that common care is a stable society that protects the basic freedoms consonant with the dignity of the imago Dei. The Christian consensus supported such a society. The erosion of that consensus under humanism has put that society at risk. And the oppression of statism will destroy it.
A Prescient Outlook.
Examining the state of society from a biblical worldview enabled Schaeffer to foresee the issues and alternatives that face us today. The Christian consensus provided both great freedoms and the form to hold them in place. But as Schaeffer saw it, humanism removed the form and turned those freedoms into a destructive force. Without God’s instruction and moral order, freedom devolves into chaos. Controlling the chaos in a man-centered society requires control of man’s freedoms. And that control ultimately leads to the loss of freedom. Based on that insight, Schaeffer rightly concluded that the logical result of humanism is the imposition of arbitrary meaning and morality by a totalitarian elite.
Looking along that trajectory, Schaeffer accurately predicted that a confluence of powers and mechanisms would allow an authoritarian elite to exercise maximum manipulation of the majority and to silence the minority.[6] Thinking locally, the United States federal government has more power today than ever imagined. Much of that power is wielded through unaccountable agencies, often in ways that ignore, interfere with, or violate our constitutional rights and freedoms that are given by our creator. One political party has become weak in its support of those rights and freedoms while the other party rejects them in favor of the agenda established by its anointed leaders. And much of the legacy media has become a propaganda machine for the authoritarian elite through obfuscation, false narratives, fabrication, lies, and censorship.
6. In his book, Schaeffer explains: “The Christian consensus gave a basis for people being unique, as made in the image of God, but this has largely been thrown away. Thus there tends, even with the good things, to be a progressive fracturedness in the practice of life as human life. Remember, too, that for a long time in philosophy, and popularly in some of the mass media, people have been taught that truth as objective truth does not exist. All morals and law are seen as relative. Thus people gradually accept the idea of manipulation, and a bit more gradually open themselves to accept the practice of the varying forms of manipulation.” How Should We Then Live?, 237.{7
So we find ourselves in the West with Schaeffer’s two alternatives. If western nations remain beholden to humanism and insist on a man-centered foundation for society, the majority will eventually give supreme authority over all aspects of life to the government. The pressures of inflation, shortages in resources and their redistribution, political violence, terrorism, and the possibility of nuclear war are mounting, and the policies and propaganda of the elite insist that the only solution is giving more power and money to the government. If a country remains on that course, the people will embrace the control of statism to avoid chaos and collapse. Or the people can embrace the common grace of God for society and build (again) on the fundamental beliefs and ethical principles grounded in Scripture that provide and secure freedoms rooted in the image of God. The only way to avoid both the collapse of society and the oppression of statism is to recognize the futility of humanism, reject a man-centered worldview, and return to the Christian consensus.
A Conviction to Act.
Perceiving the significance of society’s trajectory and the alternatives, Schaeffer called Christians to lead a recovery of the Christian consensus. As he rightly emphasized, we must “preach Romans 1 to the humanists of our day.” We must proclaim that there is one God, he has spoken, and his instruction and moral order provide the only foundation for a stable society that enjoys the freedoms supplied by his common grace. And as Schaeffer reminds us, Christians don’t have to be in the majority to influence culture and society. But leading a recovery of the biblical foundation of this country will require a radical rejection of a man-centered worldview by the church and a real commitment to Christ as lord over all.
How Should We Then Live Today?
Schaeffer’s film series presents a biblical analysis of society in the 1970s and in our own day that is accurate and profound. We have been duly warned that a man-centered worldview cannot support a stable society and its logical end is oppression by an authoritarian elite. And that knowledge alone can give us a more informed political voice and vote that is faithful to the commands of Christ. But there is far more to learn from Schaeffer regarding how we should live as Christians when faced with the alternatives before us.
First, we should cultivate a biblical worldview as the world-in-view people of Christ. Schaeffer’s analysis was so true and profound because it was first grounded in the truths, concepts, and categories of Scripture. But that is basic to being a disciple of Christ. We are called to obey all that he commands in all of life. And to do that, we must read the Bible on its own terms and make biblical conclusions to see things as they really are and follow our Lord in humble confidence and joy.
Second, we should apply that biblical worldview in wisdom to walk in the truth. The church is called to steward the truth, both in Scripture and in the application of Scripture to the world around us. That stewardship begins with a biblical worldview, but we need wisdom from the Lord to apply it rightly and consistently. Only then can we see through fabrications and false narratives to speak the truth and make judgements and decisions in obedience to Christ based on objective truth.
Given our present course and political condition, walking in the truth also will require hard work to find it. The last few years have seen a staggering increase in government manipulation through disinformation and censorship. The political elite and much of legacy media and Big Tech have arrayed their resources and influence against the truth.[7] Penetrating that network will require an awareness of its existence, a commitment and vigilance to seek out and support alternative sources for objective truth, and the courage to become sources of truth according to our own talents, callings, and opportunities.
7. Space prohibits an in-depth analysis, but a few examples suffice from the past few years: unfounded impeachment allegations, arbitrary COVID-19 restrictions and mandates, denial of an immigration crisis at the southern border, downplaying the significance of election interference, and exaggerating the January 6 protests at the capitol.
Third, we should proclaim the gospel and pursue common grace. The mission of the church is to make disciples of Christ from all nations. So we prioritize our proclamation of the Lord’s glory in salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone. But the church is also called to do good to others as we have opportunity. The form can change depending on particular circumstances. Yet the essence is always extending the common grace of God in his common covenant with all mankind.[8] And in our constitutional republic, we always have the opportunity to vote in ways that will maximize the common good. That has never been as important as now when without that vote, the majority will eventually give total control to the state, subjecting all to the imposed order of an elite in every area of life.
8. In short, the “common covenant” is the covenant that God has made with all of creation, first through Adam prior to the fall, and then through Noah after the fall. In this covenant, God extends his grace to preserve life and provide basic freedoms and protection in a sinful world in ways that are common to all mankind. At the same time, God extends his saving grace through the new covenant in Christ.
In particular, we should use our vote, and political office for some of us, to recover and advance the Christian consensus. The biblical worldview is not just for the church. God is the creator and sustainer of all things. He created all human beings in his own image. He grounds the objective reality of truth for all people and gives moral absolutes for their good. And the Lord Jesus Christ reigns over all of life throughout the whole world. This God-centered worldview provides a foundation for God’s common grace in a society of fallen human beings such that they can still enjoy imago Dei freedoms even short of salvation.[9] Voting for leaders and policies that are more likely to help restore that foundation glorifies the Lord because it extends his common grace.
9. The address by President Javier Milei of Argentina to the 79th Session of the United Nations General Assembly on September 24, 2024, offers an encouraging glimpse of such a common grace foundation for society. Near the end, President Milei clarified the foundation for his remarks: “Argentina, which is undergoing a profound process of change, has decided to embrace the ideas of freedom; those ideas that say that all citizens are born free and equal before the law, that we have inalienable rights granted by the Creator, among which are the right to life, liberty, and property. Those principles, which guide the process of change that we are carrying out in Argentina, are also the principles that will guide our international conduct from now on. . . . We believe in the defense of life for all; we believe in the defense of property for all; we believe in freedom of speech for all; we believe in freedom of worship for all; we believe in freedom of commerce for all; and we believe in limited governments, all of them.” However, as Schaeffer has helped us see, that glimpse of common grace will fade away if the church does not lead the way in recovering/establishing the Christian consensus.
Fourth, we should hope in Christ who is lord over all. Christ alone is seated on the throne of heaven and has rightful authority over all creation, now and forevermore. He rules through the saving and sanctifying grace of the new covenant and through the common grace of the common covenant. And his rule never fails.
May the Lord give us wisdom and courage to take the biblical gospel and the biblical worldview into society for the salvation of his people and for the common good of all people, all for the glory of Christ.
