For the past few years, I have been neck-deep in the writings of Francis Schaeffer. This research has included not only his Complete Works but also his pamphlets and articles. As I have read through his writings, I have kept finding references to “revolution.” Often these references relate to one’s Christian faith and spirituality. Schaeffer mentions that Bible-believing Christians are “revolutionary” as early as 1948 when he wrote an article for Biblical Missions entitled “Revolutionary Christianity.”[1] This use of “revolutionary” also shows up in his later works like The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century in which appears a chapter with the same title as his earlier article.[2]
I began to wonder what Schaeffer meant by the term and how he utilized it. My interest with Schaeffer’s usage of the term is twofold. First, he was very concerned about the influence of ideas, which is clearly seen in a variety of his books. Second, he effectively ministered during the counterculture movement that often traded in discussions of “revolution.” For these reasons, this article will explore how Schaeffer generally used the term and applied it and what we may learn from him.
“Revolutionary Christianity”
Deciphering what Schaeffer meant by “revolutionary” can be difficult because he used the term often colloquially and without a clear definition in a variety of contexts and in relation to different areas. However, some of his clearest discussion is found in Death in the City. Schaeffer wrote,
The church in our generation needs reformation, revival, and constructive revolution. At times men think of the two words reformation and revival as standing in contrast to one another, but this is a mistake. Both words are related to the word restore. Reformation refers to restoration of pure doctrine; revival refers to restoration in the Christian’s life. Reformation speaks of a return to the teachings of Scripture; revival speaks of a life brought into its proper relationship to the Holy Spirit.[3]
When Schaeffer referred to “revolution” concerning the Christian and the church, he seems to mean a combination of both reformation and revival. He wrote, “Such a combination of reformation and revival would be revolutionary in our day—revolutionary in our individual lives as Christians, revolutionary not only in reference to the liberal church but constructively revolutionary in the evangelical, orthodox church as well.”[4] He made a similar statement elsewhere that a “real revolution” consists of “real reformation and revival in the orthodox evangelical church.”[5] It is not a destructive revolution but rather a “constructive revolution.”[6] For Schaeffer, this kind of revolution was one that brought significant positive spiritual change in one’s own life, church, and even culture.
To achieve further clarity on his usage of the term, one should recognize that Schaeffer often thought in binary distinctions.[7] He made extensive use of his concept of antithesis. For Schaeffer, antithesis meant the law of non-contradiction: if a thing is true, the opposite of that thing is false. For Schaeffer, this antithesis extended even into one’s spirituality. In other words, to commit to Christianity means to stand antithetically to all things non-Christian. Schaeffer seemed to have thought that this commitment was nothing short of a revolutionary stance.[8] In comparing historic, Bible-believing Christianity to that of liberal Christianity, Schaeffer stated the following:
Historic, Bible-believing Christianity believes that the task of the church is to preach Christ and Him crucified and that men are justified by faith alone; but this does not mean that after a man has accepted Christ as his Saviour his Christianity should not show, or need not show, in every aspect of his life. In spite of the minority of Bible-believing Christians who are irrelevant, historic Bible-believing Christianity has been and is the true revolutionary Christianity.[9]
Schaeffer thought that the Bible-believing Christian lives a countercultural, radical Christian faith. For Schaeffer, the Bible-believing Christian was “revolutionary,” not the liberal Christian as many may have thought during that time. He believed that belief in the inerrant Bible provided a basis for transformative action, a basis that liberal theology did not provide. Schaeffer made a similar claim in The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century. He stated that the propositional, verbal communication that is contained in the Bible “is the basis for a revolution built on truth.” He continued:
To young people who want a revolution, let me say this: You cannot be a revolutionary simply by some minor thing like letting your hair grow and cultivating a beard. To be a real revolutionary, you must become involved in a real revolution—a revolution in which you are pitted against everybody who has turned away from God and His propositional revelation to men.[10]
Schaeffer believed that real Christian “revolution”—not a political revolution but a radical spiritual transformation that turned away from the way of the world—was not achieved by dressing or looking like a member of the counterculture. Instead, it was realized by living the Christian life uniquely obedient to the authority of the inerrant Bible—it was transformative.
Christians and Revolution
He used the term “revolution” most often in a spiritual and evangelistic sense, referring to the way in which faith in Christ includes a whole-life transformation and not mere lip-service to Christ’s lordship. It should be noted that he seemed to frame this more spiritual usage toward the counterculture movement, realizing their desire for a “revolutionary” or “radical” message and way of life. Schaeffer believed that Christianity provides a “revolutionary” (used colloquially) message for those willing to listen. In Schaeffer’s understanding, and as stated earlier, Christianity causes converts to experience personal antithesis; by becoming a Christian, one moves from guilty to forgiven, from despair to hope, and from death to life. The Christian faith, then, stood in radical difference to the current culture.
In the late 1960s, with the Berkeley protests as a historical backdrop, Schaeffer stated that the administration of Wheaton College believed some of their students were “rebels.” Yet Schaeffer did not ignore that rebellious impulse, instead focusing on and communicating the “revolutionary” message of Christianity. “It was this radical group,” he wrote, “who understood my message that if Christianity were true, it touches all life, and that it is a radical voice in the modern world. The rebels listened.” He continued, noting, “We need a revolutionary message in the midst of today’s relativistic thinking.”[11] Schaeffer understood the Bible to provide a revolutionary message because it stood in antithesis to so much of contemporary cultural thinking.
In addition to attempting to connect with the counterculture movement, Schaeffer also used “revolution” sparingly in reference to politics and the Christian’s relation to the government. Schaeffer challenged the notion that one should associate Christianity with being “conservative.” He may have in mind here his audience of students of the 1960s and 70s against the backdrop of political conservativism of the time. Even so, he writes, “One of the greatest injustices we do to our young people is to ask them to be conservative. Christianity today is not conservative, but revolutionary.”[12] He sought to call his readers to a Christian faith that was committed to change not only individually and ecclesiologically but also culturally.
Schaeffer’s most extensive discussion on political revolution occurs in A Christian Manifesto. Admittedly, this book is probably his most divisive and certainly his most polemical. Even so, Schaeffer discussed “revolution” in the area of politics. He examined at length John Knox’s view of political rebellion. Schaeffer wrote, “Whereas the Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin had reserved the right to rebellion to the civil rulers alone, Knox went further. He maintained that the common people had the right and duty to disobedience and rebellion if state officials ruled contrary to the Bible. To do otherwise would be rebellion against God.”[13] Throughout the book Schaeffer sought to offer guidance for Christians on how to practice civil disobedience and holds Knox us as an excellent example. Here, Schaeffer seems to conflate “rebellion” and “revolution”—a conflation that can sometimes cause confusion. Elsewhere, Schaeffer emphasized John Locke’s “right to revolution,” which he clarified could be understood as “the right to resist unlawful authority.”[14] Schaeffer argued, at least in this book, that part of a Christian practice of civil disobedience includes the right to revolt against an unlawful government.
Near the end of Schaeffer’s life, Philip Yancey asked him if he supported “any revolutionary movements, such as in Africa or in Indochina?”[15] Schaeffer responded clearly, “Oh, sure, I would in certain circumstances. To me, the right of revolution is a part of the democratic process. You must remember I am a radical in this sense. Most people don’t realize that.”[16] It is unclear how much Schaeffer knew of the situations in Africa or Indochina at the time. Even so, Schaeffer seems to reinforce his stance that a right to revolution is part of the democratic process.
Conclusion
Was Francis Schaeffer a revolutionary? In a colloquially spiritual sense, yes. He most certainly thought that the Bible specifically provided a basis by which individual Christians and the evangelical church overall may seek significant, radical change within their culture. I would argue that he himself was consistent in his practice of this kind of Christian living. Yet, to be clear, this kind of revolution, Schaeffer thought, came through revival and reformation of the Church. This framing of Christian living would have resonated with his audience of counter-cultural skeptics.
But what about revolution in relation to the government? The clearest we may say here is that Schaeffer believed that citizens have a right to rebellion. Schaeffer was not interested in revolution for revolution’s sake but instead believed in the possibility (and responsibility) of civil disobedience, up to the point of revolution. In other words, when the government is asking an individual to do something unlawful, he or she has a right to rebel against that unlawful authority, not just individually, but even corporately. Schaeffer believed that right to be part of a democratic society. For that reason, Schaeffer was maybe a bit rebellious in his thinking but certainly not a full-on revolutionary.
[1] Francis A. Schaeffer, “Revolutionary Christianity,” Biblical Missions 14.2 (February 1948): 27–31.
[2] Francis A. Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century, in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, 5 vols. (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1985), 4:87. While these two pieces share the same title, they are different works.
[3] Francis A. Schaeffer, Death in the City,in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, 4:209–10 (emphasis original).
[4] Schaeffer, Death in the City, 4:210 (emphasis original).
[5] Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century, 4:35.
[6] Schaeffer, Death in the City, 4:255. See also 4:299.
[7] Philip Yancey humorously assesses Schaeffer’s penchant for bifurcation by quipping: “There are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide things into two categories and those who don’t. Francis Schaeffer has built an impressive assemblage of books, speeches, films, and followers by being one of the best at bisecting the world and slapping on appropriate labels.” “Francis Schaeffer: A Prophet for Our Time? The Man and His Mission,” Christianity Today, (March 23, 1979) 14.
[8] The weight of Schaeffer’s emphasis on the need for revolution is well-exemplified when he warns that a “revolution is coming and is here. If we don’t have the courage in Jesus Christ to take a chance of getting kicked out of our churches and being ostracized today, what are we doing to do when the revolution comes in force? If we don’t have the courage to open our homes and begin to admit these things into the churches, slowly begin to make the changes that can be brought within the forms of the polity of the New Testament, then don’t be concerned about having courage when the pressure comes—we won’t have it!” The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century, 4:96.
[9] Schaeffer, “Revolutionary Christianity,” 27.
[10] Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century, 4:30.
[11] Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 4:409.
[12] Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century, 4:70.
[13] Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, 5:472.
[14] Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, 5:476.
[15] Philip Yancey, Open Windows (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 46.
[16] Yancey, Open Windows, 46.
Recent Comments