Didn't Write Reviews, But

I finished two other books this month:

#84, "Creating the Constitution," a quick account of the circumstances and some of the debate surrounding the writing of the US Constitution
#85, "A Good Marriage," a Stephen King novella about the wife of a serial killer who must decide her future after she learns of her husband's deeds (the title is ironic)

The former was good but not exhaustive--bullet points only--which left me wanting more. The latter was also good, in the sense that it is well-written, but a little reaching in terms of plot.

I have been wanting to read a book called "Bioshock: Rapture," which is the pre-story to one of my favorite video games, for years, and I finally started it on Monday. Sadly, I stopped reading it after the first chapter, as both the writing as well as the narration were horrible. I don't have time to spend with mediocre material, really, and have moved on to H. G. Wells' "The Time Machine."

#83, "A Christian Manifesto"

"A Christian Manifesto"
By Francis A. Schaeffer

This was a bit of an odd book. Like the last one I read, it is very short and I finished it in just a day or two. I say it is odd because, though I've read a lot of Schaeffer, I've never read anything of his that was so political and that I wrinkled my nose at quite as much. I think it is important, vitally, crucially important, to read critically; even--maybe especially--when you read something by an author you respect. And by critically I don't mean "as a critic," reading only because you want to say something about the work, but "critically" as in "thoughtfully," considering the merit of the ideas presented on their own terms and deciding whether they are valid or invalid. When the author is one whom you are familiar with, this process becomes the more important because no man is perfect. There is always something to disagree with between any two people, and I think there can be value in disagreement. Disagreement shows me better who I am, what I think. It shows me that I think for myself, that I am not a mere robot copy-and-pasting ideas that others have, but that I have my own ideas about how the world works. Even so, it feels strange to read a book by Francis Schaeffer, one of the greatest Christian minds of the 20th, and have some reservations about what he says.

"A Christian Manifesto" is a response, of sorts, to documents published earlier in the 20th century titled "The Humanist Manifesto" (1 and 2). Schaeffer describes humanism as a worldview diametrically opposed to Christianity--which is quite right--and warns against that worldview becoming mainstream, the "normal." Of course, when this was written in 1982, there was still hope (?) of humanism's downfall and a return to the values of truth as defined by true Christianity. As we know, this hope has been torn to pieces. Schaeffer's worst fear, humanism as the modern standard, has largely come true. Modern man no longer accepts the answer that there is only one true truth--I daresay that even many who call themselves "Christians" would hedge on this point and say there are ways for each of us to find our own path to heaven. It seems to me that humanism is winning the "culture war" and Christianity, at least as it appears in the United States, is largely impotent to curb the widespread change in ideology.

Schaeffer is not at his best here. His points on religion and worldview are as sharp as ever and always on point, but when he gets into politics he loses focus. Perhaps, as I mentioned above, my own view is skewed as a result of growing up and living in what I consider post-Christian America. Even so, he is not a political scientist, but a philosopher and pastor. I can't really pin down what exactly he wrote that made me wrinkle my nose, but, for me, this book missed the mark as a response to humanism--of course, for Schaeffer, even missing the mark still leaves us with excellent thoughts and mindful commentary.