What do you think?
Rate this book
Who is for Peace?
The secular humanist world view versus the Christian world view and Biblical perspectives on military preparedness.
- GenresChristian
112 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1983
1 person is currently reading
36 people want to read
About the author
Francis A. Schaeffer
95 books810 followersFrancis August Schaeffer was an American Evangelical Christian theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor. He is most famous for his writings and his establishment of the L'Abri community in Switzerland. Opposed to theological modernism, Schaeffer promoted a more historic Protestant faith and a presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics which he believed would answer the questions of the age.
Wife: Edith Schaeffer
children: Susan Schaeffer Macaulay
Wife: Edith Schaeffer
children: Susan Schaeffer Macaulay
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
Read
March 22, 2024Nobody cares about Peace it appears. Zero reviews on Goodreads.
Found this in my attic. I was a big Schaeffer fan back in the 1980s.
This is 3 different takes, I need to sit still and read it.
What do a Reformed evangelical, a Russian dissident held for over a decade in Soviet prisons and psychiatric hospitals, and a conservative Catholic have in common? A concern for peace. But is not a peace that is simply a ceasefire. It is a peace with justice and love for the downtrodden.
These authors have put together a work that forcefully asks the question, "Who is for peace?" Their main thesis is that those who cry out for peace are actually the ones who, intentionally or not, seek tyranny and slavery. Those isolationists or pacifists who espouse "peace at any price" are often "the ones who, in the end, open the way for national, and even global, tragedy through war" (p. 8). They support their thesis with "a basic realism and common sense" (p. 7), rather than the Scriptures.
Francis Schaeffer opens the book with his essay, "The Secular Humanist World View Versus the Christian World View and Biblical Perspectives on Military Preparedness." The essay is severely disjointed, appearing to be two essays pieced together into one. The theses of the two halves appear not to relate directly to each other. Either his first topic of secular humanism need to be directly related to military preparedness or the first half of his essay should have been left out altogether.
He first cries out against the inhumanity of secular humanism: in the name of humanity they have adopted a materialism that destroys the basis for values, the basis for law, and the basis for the dignity and worth of human life. Consequently, the State has been assigned with ultimate value. Schaeffer begins his argument for nuclear defense by linking his statements about secular humanism to the materialist philosophy of the Soviet Union. He justifies the U.S.'s nuclear arsenals by saying that it must stand firm against the U.S.S.R.'s external program of expansion and oppression; to not do so is both not realistic and not acting in Christian love toward the oppressed and downtrodden. To act like the pacifists in between the first and second world wars ignoring the reality and tyranny of Hitler is to encourage the same behavior in the U.S.S.R.
There are many limitations with Schaeffer's arguments. First, he begins by criticizing the secular humanism within the U.S. which has resulted in materialism, moral and legal relativism, the devaluation of human life, and religious statism, and then goes on to say that the U.S. needs to stand firm against the U.S.S.R. who holds these very same values. Christians should defend the nonchristian U.S. against the nonchristian U.S.S.R. When Schaeffer does this, he not only is self-contradictory but appears to argue on behalf of pacifism, making no distinction between the value system of the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. If there is no distinction, then what are the moral grounds for war? Whose side should Christians take? Maybe it is just a matter of degree of adopted secular humanist philosophy that makes one government just and the other unjust. It becomes a matter of standing against the worst of two evils. Schaeffer addresses none of these issues.
Second, Schaeffer's argument is not biblical based. He argues from "realism" or "Christian love," vaguely defined terms. He does not deal with the biblical grounds for justice, civil government, civil disobedience, personal vengeance, and revolution. He has left all these concepts vague and to the readers' interpretation.
In short, Schaeffer's arguments for military defense have fatal flaws. These flaws will be easily exploited by the pacifists and isolationists with whom he hopes to persuade.
Nevertheless, Schaeffer's argumentation does have value. It concurs with the thesis of Solzhenitsyn that the West has not stood firm against the tyranny of the U.S.S.R. because it has sold out to the materialist doctrines of peace and prosperity - at any price. It has lost its moral fortitude. There is no will to fight for justice and love when these concepts are no longer cultural values. Essentially the West's values are now the same as those of the U.S.S.R.: the materialist desire for wealth. The U.S.S.R. wants to take it, the U.S. wants to keep it.
What Schaeffer's essay lacks in biblical and rational argument, Bukovsky's essay, "The Peace Movement and the Soviet Union," attempts to make up for by historical evidence. Of course, the study of history does not give us values or rationale, but it can make us aware both of the consequences of our choices and the real intentions behind a history of a nation'
USSR
hath forked tongue. It supports peace movements for its own warring, expansionist ends. When it allied with Hitler, it actively supported the English and French peace movement so that Hitler would have limited resistance. This support was immediately withdrawn when Hitler attacked the U.S.S.R. When the war was over, the U.S.S.R. against supported peace as it gobbled up country after country in Central Europe.
The doctrine of détente was resurrected by the Soviets only to gain badly needed technology, goods, and credit. That there never was any intention for real détente is clear: during that time the Soviets boosted their nuclear arsenals to be equal or greater than those of the U.S. As Solzhenitsyn long ago stated, "Détente is no détente." Through their doctrine of détente, the West is not dependent upon the trade and especially the credits of the U.S.S.R.
The U.S.S.R., however, ended any talks of détente with its invasion of Afghanistan and military threats against Poland. Now the Soviets seek to again wipe their slate clean in our minds by renewing their support for the peace movement. Bukovsky links both the planning and financial support to the U.S.S.R. Nuclear weapons are presently labeled immoral even when used against the tyrannies of the Soviets. The peace movement's argument for peace at any price because of the fear of Soviet aggression, says Bukovsky, is as deranging "as to lead some people to advocate the abolition of the police because the criminals are becoming too aggressive" (p. 50).
Bukovsky directly attacks the propositions of the peace movement. Those who say that the Soviets will lay down their arms when the West lays down her arms are simply naïve when faced with historical evidence. Those who argue against nuclear deployment near their own villages or towns (or even countries), saying let a nuclear war be fought between the Soviets and Americans, are naïve to think that nuclear war would leave portions of Western Europe neutral and unaffected. The peace movement wants peace at any price - on Soviet terms. When Bukovsky wrote this essay, the peace movement supported both the invasion of Afghanistan and the imposition of marital law in Poland. (It has since divided over these issues.)
Why is the Soviet Union so eager to expand its borders? Why is the Soviet threat a real one? The Soviet Union is internally degenerating. The ruling class is only interested in self-preservation. Bukovsky turns the Marxist argument against capitalists upon itself in stating that the Soviets need to create an external threat in order to take the eyes of the Russians off the real issues. The Soviets are afraid of world democracy and freedom because they know that if their people get too close they will desire that same freedom at home in the Soviet Union.
Bukovsky concludes his historical argument with a moral one. If the Soviet system is internally crumbling, why has not it long ago fallen apart? He blames the West for their support of a regime of tyranny. He echoes Solzhenitsyn in stating that Western trade, credits, and technology keep this reign of death in power. Rather than supporting movements and armies who rebel against the Soviets, the West prefers not to get their hands dirty. Bankers and businessmen, who worship profit rather than love and justice, keep the Soviet regime stable so as to use them for their own ends.
Bukovsky's arguments form the center of this book. His essay makes both Schaeffer and Hitchcock stand on the sidelines. His historical evidence has already provoked change within the peace movement itself. His moral argument, however, seems to fall on deaf ears, ones that do prefer peace at any price. Why? Solzhenitsyn, Schaeffer, and hundreds of others, both on the left and right, bemoan our Western materialist secular humanist post-Christian culture that has no interest for justice or love of fellow man. As Jesus said, one only finds his life by losing it for others. This is true of nations as well. We will lose our life and freedom if we are not willing to lay it down for others in bondage and oppression.
In the last essay of this collection, "The Catholic Bishop's Search for Peace," James Hitchcock critiques the Catholic bishops of the U.S.'s pastoral letter on war and peace. Although Hitchcock agrees with some of its underlying themes, especially its anti-abortion stance, he argues that the document ignores the basic Catholic theological tradition. Rather than acting as a prophet, these bishops have attempted to arrive at truth through public debate and democratic consensus. They even leave the Catholic just war tradition, which Hitchcock himself seems to question ("consequentialism" and "proportionalism" are not biblical concepts) and instead seek to balance it with Christian pacifism. They do not, and indeed cannot, cite any mainstream Catholics to support their position. The document has redefined peace in a secular way as the absence of war, rather than maintaining the true Catholic concept of peace as complete moral conversion. In short, Hitchcock says that the bishops have sold their birth right for the pottage of American pacifist liberalism. The letter "marks the culmination of a kind of revolution in American Catholicism" (p. 102). This letter marks a turn in the Catholic tradition towards a secular humanist philosophy that does not point to Jesus for salvation nor apply the values of justice and love to society.
In sum, although this book does not make a sound biblical argument for national nuclear defense or deterrence, this books in an important document in support of these concepts. The historical and moral argument of Bukovsky, the key essay in the collection, is well worth the price of the book. Nevertheless, I am anxiously awaiting for an evangelical to present an in-depth biblical and historical defense of nuclear deterrence. This book is a beginning of that defense.
Found this in my attic. I was a big Schaeffer fan back in the 1980s.
This is 3 different takes, I need to sit still and read it.
What do a Reformed evangelical, a Russian dissident held for over a decade in Soviet prisons and psychiatric hospitals, and a conservative Catholic have in common? A concern for peace. But is not a peace that is simply a ceasefire. It is a peace with justice and love for the downtrodden.
These authors have put together a work that forcefully asks the question, "Who is for peace?" Their main thesis is that those who cry out for peace are actually the ones who, intentionally or not, seek tyranny and slavery. Those isolationists or pacifists who espouse "peace at any price" are often "the ones who, in the end, open the way for national, and even global, tragedy through war" (p. 8). They support their thesis with "a basic realism and common sense" (p. 7), rather than the Scriptures.
Francis Schaeffer opens the book with his essay, "The Secular Humanist World View Versus the Christian World View and Biblical Perspectives on Military Preparedness." The essay is severely disjointed, appearing to be two essays pieced together into one. The theses of the two halves appear not to relate directly to each other. Either his first topic of secular humanism need to be directly related to military preparedness or the first half of his essay should have been left out altogether.
He first cries out against the inhumanity of secular humanism: in the name of humanity they have adopted a materialism that destroys the basis for values, the basis for law, and the basis for the dignity and worth of human life. Consequently, the State has been assigned with ultimate value. Schaeffer begins his argument for nuclear defense by linking his statements about secular humanism to the materialist philosophy of the Soviet Union. He justifies the U.S.'s nuclear arsenals by saying that it must stand firm against the U.S.S.R.'s external program of expansion and oppression; to not do so is both not realistic and not acting in Christian love toward the oppressed and downtrodden. To act like the pacifists in between the first and second world wars ignoring the reality and tyranny of Hitler is to encourage the same behavior in the U.S.S.R.
There are many limitations with Schaeffer's arguments. First, he begins by criticizing the secular humanism within the U.S. which has resulted in materialism, moral and legal relativism, the devaluation of human life, and religious statism, and then goes on to say that the U.S. needs to stand firm against the U.S.S.R. who holds these very same values. Christians should defend the nonchristian U.S. against the nonchristian U.S.S.R. When Schaeffer does this, he not only is self-contradictory but appears to argue on behalf of pacifism, making no distinction between the value system of the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. If there is no distinction, then what are the moral grounds for war? Whose side should Christians take? Maybe it is just a matter of degree of adopted secular humanist philosophy that makes one government just and the other unjust. It becomes a matter of standing against the worst of two evils. Schaeffer addresses none of these issues.
Second, Schaeffer's argument is not biblical based. He argues from "realism" or "Christian love," vaguely defined terms. He does not deal with the biblical grounds for justice, civil government, civil disobedience, personal vengeance, and revolution. He has left all these concepts vague and to the readers' interpretation.
In short, Schaeffer's arguments for military defense have fatal flaws. These flaws will be easily exploited by the pacifists and isolationists with whom he hopes to persuade.
Nevertheless, Schaeffer's argumentation does have value. It concurs with the thesis of Solzhenitsyn that the West has not stood firm against the tyranny of the U.S.S.R. because it has sold out to the materialist doctrines of peace and prosperity - at any price. It has lost its moral fortitude. There is no will to fight for justice and love when these concepts are no longer cultural values. Essentially the West's values are now the same as those of the U.S.S.R.: the materialist desire for wealth. The U.S.S.R. wants to take it, the U.S. wants to keep it.
What Schaeffer's essay lacks in biblical and rational argument, Bukovsky's essay, "The Peace Movement and the Soviet Union," attempts to make up for by historical evidence. Of course, the study of history does not give us values or rationale, but it can make us aware both of the consequences of our choices and the real intentions behind a history of a nation'
USSR
hath forked tongue. It supports peace movements for its own warring, expansionist ends. When it allied with Hitler, it actively supported the English and French peace movement so that Hitler would have limited resistance. This support was immediately withdrawn when Hitler attacked the U.S.S.R. When the war was over, the U.S.S.R. against supported peace as it gobbled up country after country in Central Europe.
The doctrine of détente was resurrected by the Soviets only to gain badly needed technology, goods, and credit. That there never was any intention for real détente is clear: during that time the Soviets boosted their nuclear arsenals to be equal or greater than those of the U.S. As Solzhenitsyn long ago stated, "Détente is no détente." Through their doctrine of détente, the West is not dependent upon the trade and especially the credits of the U.S.S.R.
The U.S.S.R., however, ended any talks of détente with its invasion of Afghanistan and military threats against Poland. Now the Soviets seek to again wipe their slate clean in our minds by renewing their support for the peace movement. Bukovsky links both the planning and financial support to the U.S.S.R. Nuclear weapons are presently labeled immoral even when used against the tyrannies of the Soviets. The peace movement's argument for peace at any price because of the fear of Soviet aggression, says Bukovsky, is as deranging "as to lead some people to advocate the abolition of the police because the criminals are becoming too aggressive" (p. 50).
Bukovsky directly attacks the propositions of the peace movement. Those who say that the Soviets will lay down their arms when the West lays down her arms are simply naïve when faced with historical evidence. Those who argue against nuclear deployment near their own villages or towns (or even countries), saying let a nuclear war be fought between the Soviets and Americans, are naïve to think that nuclear war would leave portions of Western Europe neutral and unaffected. The peace movement wants peace at any price - on Soviet terms. When Bukovsky wrote this essay, the peace movement supported both the invasion of Afghanistan and the imposition of marital law in Poland. (It has since divided over these issues.)
Why is the Soviet Union so eager to expand its borders? Why is the Soviet threat a real one? The Soviet Union is internally degenerating. The ruling class is only interested in self-preservation. Bukovsky turns the Marxist argument against capitalists upon itself in stating that the Soviets need to create an external threat in order to take the eyes of the Russians off the real issues. The Soviets are afraid of world democracy and freedom because they know that if their people get too close they will desire that same freedom at home in the Soviet Union.
Bukovsky concludes his historical argument with a moral one. If the Soviet system is internally crumbling, why has not it long ago fallen apart? He blames the West for their support of a regime of tyranny. He echoes Solzhenitsyn in stating that Western trade, credits, and technology keep this reign of death in power. Rather than supporting movements and armies who rebel against the Soviets, the West prefers not to get their hands dirty. Bankers and businessmen, who worship profit rather than love and justice, keep the Soviet regime stable so as to use them for their own ends.
Bukovsky's arguments form the center of this book. His essay makes both Schaeffer and Hitchcock stand on the sidelines. His historical evidence has already provoked change within the peace movement itself. His moral argument, however, seems to fall on deaf ears, ones that do prefer peace at any price. Why? Solzhenitsyn, Schaeffer, and hundreds of others, both on the left and right, bemoan our Western materialist secular humanist post-Christian culture that has no interest for justice or love of fellow man. As Jesus said, one only finds his life by losing it for others. This is true of nations as well. We will lose our life and freedom if we are not willing to lay it down for others in bondage and oppression.
In the last essay of this collection, "The Catholic Bishop's Search for Peace," James Hitchcock critiques the Catholic bishops of the U.S.'s pastoral letter on war and peace. Although Hitchcock agrees with some of its underlying themes, especially its anti-abortion stance, he argues that the document ignores the basic Catholic theological tradition. Rather than acting as a prophet, these bishops have attempted to arrive at truth through public debate and democratic consensus. They even leave the Catholic just war tradition, which Hitchcock himself seems to question ("consequentialism" and "proportionalism" are not biblical concepts) and instead seek to balance it with Christian pacifism. They do not, and indeed cannot, cite any mainstream Catholics to support their position. The document has redefined peace in a secular way as the absence of war, rather than maintaining the true Catholic concept of peace as complete moral conversion. In short, Hitchcock says that the bishops have sold their birth right for the pottage of American pacifist liberalism. The letter "marks the culmination of a kind of revolution in American Catholicism" (p. 102). This letter marks a turn in the Catholic tradition towards a secular humanist philosophy that does not point to Jesus for salvation nor apply the values of justice and love to society.
In sum, although this book does not make a sound biblical argument for national nuclear defense or deterrence, this books in an important document in support of these concepts. The historical and moral argument of Bukovsky, the key essay in the collection, is well worth the price of the book. Nevertheless, I am anxiously awaiting for an evangelical to present an in-depth biblical and historical defense of nuclear deterrence. This book is a beginning of that defense.
September 16, 2024
Very interesting book. Good variety of views. As a Catholic I agreed with most comments on Catholicism
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews