How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture

by Francis A. Schaeffer, Lane T. Dennis (Foreword)

As one of the foremost evangelical thinkers of the twentieth century, Francis Schaeffer long pondered the fate of declining Western culture. In this brilliant book he analyzed the reasons for modern society's state of affairs and presented the only viable alternative: living by the Christian ethic, acceptance of God's revelation, and total affirmation of the Bible's morals, values, and meaning.

Genres: Christian, Philosophy, Theology, History, Nonfiction, Christianity, Religion

290 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1975

About the author

Francis 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

Reviews

[Cindy Rollins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just finished reading this with my Patreon group. I was nervous it would be too narrow for our broadly Christian group with its early focus on the Reformation but Schaefer spoke to all kinds of people in real life and his magnanimity shows. Chapter 12 seemed prescient of times we live in now as politics, science, philosophy and theology come crashing together. He ends with a warning that the values of personal peace and affluence will bring us down, even Christians if we aren’t willing to be uncomfortable for the sake of the Gospel.

[Ruth Barone · Rating 5 out of 5]

How Should We Then Live is a discussion of how philosophy, art, and music have changed throughout history, and what these changes say about the human race and where we are headed.

This book reads like an art history class. Schaeffer takes you through history chronologically, through the dark ages, the renaissance, reformation, the enlightenment, all the way into modern time. Over this time period, art goes from being realistic and detailed to being highly abstract. Music becomes more dissident, fragmented. Popular philosophy becomes heavy on relativism and abandons the notion of universal truth. All of these things are a reflection of our worldview: we have become a people who are fractured, isolated, and lost, not interested in seeing things for how they really are, unable to believe in anything concretely, and with nothing solid to stand on. And when people, countries, or empires don't have anything solid to stand on, the smallest crises can cause them to collapse.

Here are a few quotes:

"But even people who believe they are machines cannot live like machines, and thus they must "leap upstairs" against their reason and try to find something which gives meaning to life, even though to do so they have to deny their reason."

"...the Greeks found that society - the polis - was not a strong enough final authority to build upon, and it is still not strong enough today. If there are no absolutes, and if we do not like either the chaos of hedonism or the absoluteness of the 51-percent vote, only one other alternative is left: one man or an elite, giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes."

"I believe the majority of the silent majority, young and old, will sustain the loss of liberties without raising their voices as long as their own life-styles are not threatened."

"Edward Gibbon said that the following five attributes marked Rome at its end: first, a mounting love of show and luxury; second, a widening gap between the very rich and the very poor; third, an obsession with sex; fourth, freakishness in the arts, masquerading as originality, and enthusiasms pretending to be creativity; fifth, an increased desire to live off the state. It all sounds so familiar. We have come a long road since our first chapter, and we are back in Rome."

It's definitely worth a read.

[Brenda Cregor · Rating 5 out of 5]

SECOND READING: 1.2014

Though they were produced during a different time, without a great deal of cash[ I assume], Shaeffer's 12 episode video collection, by the same name as the book, is on youtube. If you are not an avid reader, or want to see the art and architecture spoken of in this text, watch the episodes.
__________________________________


As the title indicates, this is a non-fiction chronological analysis of Western culture, since the Roman Empire.
Schaeffer wrote this book in the 70's. I kept flipping to the front of the book to make sure it had not been written in the last decade.
Truth has a way of becoming prophecy because the patterns of history and humanity are cyclical ( no matter what every succeeding generation believes about their dominating "originality"). Schaeffer understands this and fully explores the inevibility of pending disaster for Western society.
If I ever had any intention to resell this book ( I did not), they were dashed! This text is heavily dog-earred and highlighted. I will read it again and again as a reminder of what has led us to this point in time.
My favorite thoughts and ideas:
" People's presuppositions rest upon that which they consider to be the turth of what exists."

" The following five attributes marked Rome at its end:
(1) a mounting love of show and luxury ( that is, affluence)
(2) a widening gap between the very rich and the very poor ( this could be among countries in the family of nations as well as in a single nation)
(3) an obsession with sex
(4) freakishness in the arts, masquerading as originality, and enthusiasms pretending to be creativity
(5) an increased desire to live off the state "
[ Anything sound familiar?:]

"Society cannot stand chaos. Some group or some person will fill the vacuum. An elite will offer us arbitrary absolutes, and who will stand in its way. Will the silent majority help?...The majority are left with only their two poor values of personal peace and affluence...With such values, will men stand for their liberties? Will they not give up their liberties step by step, inch by inch, as long as their own personal peace and prosperity is sustained and not challenged, and as long as the goods are delivered?"

Schaeffer says...no.

[Ioseph Bonifacius (Ioannes) · Rating 1 out of 5]

Really bad, a book that contradicts itself. The whole problem of the book is that the author says, following Mr. Luther, that reason is the enemy of faith, he then goes on to attack St. Thomas, he says in the book that Thomas would teach that human reason is not fallen, which is false, he makes it very clear that he is very ignorant in the subjects he discusses. Further in the same book he goes into discussing the contemporary times, how the artists portray the universe as something chaotic and of the result of chance, and that this cannot be the world we live in. I agree with mr. Schaeffer in this second part, the only problem is that he is using reason to arrive at his conclusion, but isn’t reason the “whore of the devil”? That is what Mr. Luther would say.

According to St. Thomas, people would only believe absurdities like that if they are not using their mind well, for our intellect has an end which is truth. But he would not say that we can have supernatural faith without the aid of grace, nor would he say that faith is rational, he would actually say that it is above reason, but it cannot contradict reason. Right reason can teach us how to behave, can bring us to truth, beauty, and goodness, but many times we are not using our reason rightly because of our fallenness.

Thomas Neill sums up Luther’s attitude towards philosophy.

“There have been many persons - many, like Luther, with doctor’s degrees-who were happily nonrational. But there are few, indeed, who have made as vicious an attack on reason as [Luther]. All philosophers were anathema to him. He calls Aristotle an “urchin who must be put in the pis-sty or donkey’s stable”; the Sorbonne is “that mother of all errors”; the theologians of Louvain are ‘coarse donkeys, cursed sows, bellies of blasphemers, epicurean swine, heretics and idolators, putrid puddles, the cursed broth of hell.’ Not only philosophers, but philosophy itself is viciously attacked by Luther. In 1536 he wrote:’I shall have to chop off the head of philosophy’. Again: ‘One should learn philosophy only as one learns witchcraft, that is to destroy it.’ Luther carries his assault to reason itself by attacking man’s very mind. ‘Reason,’ he wrote, ‘is contrary to faith... In believers it should be killed and buried.’ It ‘is the devil’s handmaid and does nothing but blaspheme and dishonor all that God says or does.’

And of course Mr. Luther attacked thomism like Schaeffer:

“The opinions of the Thomists, even though approved by Pope or Council, remain opinions and do not become articles of faith, though an angel from heaven should say the contrary.”

Fr. Paul Robinson concludes therefore:

“Occam drove a wedge between natural and supernatural, between reason and faith; Luther cuts them off completely. For Occam, it is impossible to make faith and reason agree, but that’s no reason to throw out one or the other. No, we will keep both, and be uncertain about both. Luther will not have any of this. For him, there is only one truth, that of faith. For him, like Occam, faith and reason cannot get along. Instead of trying to give them their territories, so as to allow them both to exist, he tosses reason overboard. The Occamist spirit contributed to Luther’s own system of thought. For Luther had a certain rational system at the heart of his worldview, even while proclaiming irrationality to the world with his entertaining and zoological vituperation. Occamism lent quite a contribution to the formation of this worldview. Firstly, Luther imbibed the Occamist questioning and critical attitude, by which one subjects everything to one’s judgement. Even in his Commentary on Romans, written before his break with the Catholic Church. Thus, Luther did not see dogmas in terms of degrees of certitude, where one Church decision is infallible, another holds great weight, while another is mere opinion. For him, everything was in the realm of opinion; there were no fixed truths.“

A Catholic submits his beliefs to the judgment of the Church’s infallible teaching authority- the Magisterium. A Catholic will submit to the Magisterium even when, if left to his own judgement, he would choose otherwise. Very difficult personal circumstances, the pressures of society, and popular opinion may tempt a Catholic to follow a course of action condemned by the Magisterium - contraception, abortion, divorce- but a true Catholic will submit to the authority of the Church no matter how difficult this may be. A rationalist will not submit to any authority exterior to his own reason. A rationalist makes his own reason the arbiter of what he will or will not believe, for how he will or will not behave. Protestantism is the direct link between the renaissance humanism and nineteenth century rationalism. The sixteenth century Protestants, in final analysis are rationalists. They would deny this in that they would submit to the authority of the Bible. But if pressed they would admit that it is their own interpretation of the Bible using their reason. Luther did exactly this, he substituted the interpretation of the Church for his own, but was furious if other Protestants had the temerity to differ from his own theories. He saw nothing incongruous in expecting others to treat his opinion as infallible when he repudiated the infallible authority of the Church. The history of Protestantism has been one of fragmentation from it’s very inception.

[Amy · Rating 4 out of 5]

As someone seeped in the philosophy of worldview, my initial reaction was something along the lines of 'oh, this is where my professors got it from.' Not bad, just review. And that was something of a disappointment.
But the more this book hones in on the philosophy that molded the 20th and 21st century, the more interesting it got and the more I felt that I learned from the book. It was definitely engaging. I'm beginning to understand why the introductions to these books speak of Schaeffer so reverently.
I'm not sure if I would give this book to a non-Christian, though. Schaeffer has a very clear worldview and his inspection of other worldviews can often feel dismissive before fully laying out the argument.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a prophetic book. Schaeffer saw the decline of western civilization over two decades ago, and foresaw the kind of economic collapse we are now witnessing. This is an important book for all Christians to read, and even more important for non-Christians.

Schaeffer evaluates the big philosophical arguments presented throughout history, demonstrates that the humanist ideals always lead to nihilism and moral degeneracy, bankrupting the value of the human being.

Read this book--it is the foundation of the modern Christian movement's efforts to forestall the coming totalitarianism and inevitable destruction it will bring.

[trivialchemy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Religious or not, one must admit that Dr. Schaeffer is as scholarly a theologian as one might find. This book is worth reading as much (perhaps more) for its survey of Western Culture as for its Christian ethic.

[Jon Harris · Rating 4 out of 5]

How Should We Then Live? is both intellectually satisfying, and morally stimulating. Schaeffer provides his audience with a brief yet rich survey of the ontology of Western thought. As Schaeffer progresses his readers through the annuls of history, they are introduced to great thinkers and artists who have shaped the ideological landscape of the West. We find that the philosopher’s teaching has habitually made its way into the painter’s canvas and the musicians score. Men will operate according to their beliefs about reality, namely their concept of deity. Schaeffer’s warning to the generation of his day is simple: when man deifies himself chaos will ensue and tyranny will result. If tyranny is to be avoided, Western man must return to Christian assumptions about God and truth.

I am convinced of Schaeffer’s prediction. He opens and closes his book with a section from Proverbs 23:7. “As a man thinketh, so is he.” Schaeffer’s argument is that a society’s view of reality (most importantly their view of God) will determine their actions and thus their destiny. Schaeffer’s proof is historical. The problem of the “one and the many” has plagued the ontology of Western man since ancient times. The Greek “polis” was not a sufficient foundation for transcendence and as a result the culture fell. Similarly, Roman society fell as both the “gods” and “Caesar” (particulars) were insufficient bases on which to ground the universal. Eventually this culture slid into tyranny, and then corruption. Next came the reign of the “Holy Roman Empire.” However, the Roman Catholic church eventually reached a point in the middle ages in which God was thought to be almost inaccessible to the common man. The significance of the particulars was being lost as they struggled to connect themselves to a distant universal. The result was that an “out of touch” universal was unable to give meaning to the particulars. Honor once again gave way to corruption. The Reformation marks a time in which unity was finally found between the universals and particulars. As a result culture prospered. Education increased, craftsmanship and artistry were of finer quality, modern science was championed, and ethics were refined. A parallel movement in Southern Europe (the Renaissance) promised a similar optimism. Ultimately as this movement blossomed into the Enlightenment a pessimism began to emerge. Schaeffer explains how Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, and Kierkegaard sent Western culture into relativism. Transcendent truth was not thought to be possible. Yet, if transcendent truth is not possible, chaos must be the result. Man himself was not a sufficient base by which to ground the universal. With the loss of the transcendent, man had lost any kind of value by which to place on himself. Man now does what is right upon his own terms. The next step for Western man is tyranny as man tries to somehow bring about order from disorder. These historical examples show Schaeffer’s argument to be sound. Separated from the character of the transcendent God of Scripture, there exists no way by which to unify the “particulars.” Deifying any aspect of creation will ultimately fail.

This argument is relevant to our present culture in this way: If Schaeffer’s diagnosis of past history is correct, his predictions for our present are also likely correct. We are sliding into tyranny as governments across the West take more and more control, stifling the freedom of the individual. Our only hope to restore and secure our freedom according to Schaeffer is to look back to the Reformation and worship a God who gives meaning to the particulars.

[Yibbie · Rating 2 out of 5]

I guess I was not the only one confused by the title. Schaeffer felt the need at the very end of the book to include an explanation of how he chose it. If I had to title it, I would have chosen something more like ‘Why they live the way they do’, ‘Why they paint the way they do’, or ‘What has replaced God’, because this book is more about the chaotic hopelessness of modern philosophy and its immoral results than about how a Christian should live.
Not that it wasn’t good. I think. I really don’t know enough about philosophy or philosophers to be able to critique his use of them. If it is correct, it does help make sense of certain aspects of our culture that can be confusing for someone trained in classical Christian thought. However, I did feel that occasionally it may have tried too hard to draw direct cause an effect when he attempts to tie it into art or music. Maybe if he had gone into more detail, I wouldn’t have gotten that impression, but Schaeffer often just states that this is why a painter painted this way without really letting us know if that was what the painter said or he just inferred it. I understand that this is a companion book to a documentary. Perhaps in combination with that, it would be clearer.
I appreciate the effort that he put into this book. The current godless philosophies certainly need to be refuted, but shouldn’t it be refuted with Biblical truth? I went into this certainly looking for more Biblical exposition. Instead, I found a book that assumes a Christian world view and Biblical understanding of the nature of man and the nature of God, and so just explains the current godless views without balancing it with Biblical teaching. So maybe the problem is because it was not what I assumed it was from the title.
If you are interested in a Christian summary of modern thought, this might be the book you are looking form.

[Davis Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

When I first read this in high school, it was my introduction to Western cultural history; and all the research and thinking that I subsequently did was filtered through Schaeffer's lens. In retrospect, I highly regret that, because it took me a long time indeed to shed the extremely tinted views that I picked up from him. On revisiting this book having actually read or experienced most of the thinkers and artists he mentions, I find it to be quite shallow and unfair, even as I can applaud Schaeffer for his admirably succinct writing and frequent penetrating insights. Though it's hard to disagree with his overall thesis, he tends to badly oversimplify certain things, and his upper/lower stories dichotomy is limited in applicability. Though I am a firm believer in the inextricability of message and medium, he also goes overboard with conflating aesthetics with morals (i.e. Michelangelo's David represents "heroic, autonomous man" and thus is not morally beautiful. He completely misreads the Renaissance on the whole, actually: he should have reserved those criticisms for the Enlightenment).

Sweeping generalizations are unavoidable in a small-scale work like this, but so many of them are flat-out irresponsible; and it surprises me that such a well-read person as Schaeffer could make these claims. Sure, I can see why the Radical Orthodox folk like to pinpoint Scotus and Ockham as Fathers of the Decline of the West, and Eastern Orthodox do the same with Augustine. But to label Aquinas as such, as Schaeffer does here, is flabbergasting. It's simply one of the most misguided interpretations of anything that I've ever read. It just sounds like he has an anti-Catholic bee in his bonnet that he needs to discharge on the Angelic Doctor. This is no more or less absurd than the standard papist argument that Luther is the father of secularity. It's pure propaganda with close to zero basis in reality. If Schaeffer could actually get in the habit of citing or at least quoting the people he paraphrases, this would be a lot easier to swallow because at least he would be twisting words, not making them up out of thin air. Another brief yet telling example of his dismissiveness is when he says that Huxley advocated for hallucinogenic drugs in Brave New World. Anyone who's actually read that novel will tell you that it's a portrayal of a dystopia, not a prescription for a utopia. Although Huxley did indeed turn later in life to this idea, it shows that Schaeffer perhaps has not actually read many of the thinkers he dissects and thinks he can slip these generalizations past unsuspecting readers. I could go on and on with these.

Still, it's 2.5 stars rounded up because I retain more than a grain of fondness for Schaeffer's insight. Its influence in the field of "worldview apologetics" can't be overstated, and much of what it says is dead true. But I highly urge you to look to other of modernity's profoundest doctors (MacIntyre, Weaver, Scruton, Pieper) and other voices in the conversation about Christianity and culture rather than letting your presumptions be shaped by Schaeffer. Better yet, engage with the people and movements that he discusses.

P.S. It seems most people who read this have also seen the video series. If you have, please know that the scene in one of the later episodes where a guy is sprinkling LSD into the public water supply (charmingly, with SIMULATION flashing across the screen) positively terrified me at the time, and I still think about it whenever I use tap water. Scaremongering at its finest.

[Jack Osider · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you are agnostic, atheistic, Christian, or existential in your beliefs you need to read this book. It does not matter that it's(this book's)author is Christian because he very fairly gives thought to each world-view and the ideas behind them. In a culture where truth is relativistic and sometime life makes absolutely no sense, it is important to search all possibilities. Any intellectual and open-minded person will give this book a try. Even if you do indeed disagree. We tell each other to be open minded, well let us be open to everything. This author makes a compelling argument for Christianity. Whether in the end you believe it or not you still can say that you were open enough to read this book. He does not insult your intelligence by ramming the Bible down peoples throats, so please read for it is indeed interesting even if I do not agree with all his thoughts and ideas.

[grllopez ~ with freedom and books · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of my favorite books on culture. I need to reread it soon and give an actual review of it, b/c it has been a long time since I first read it.

UPDATE: Finally reread this. Still relevant and more than ever. Schaeffer wrote this decades ago and he could not have been more prophetic. He was already talking about the "Elites" and the "Technocrats!"

Schaeffer says there are only two alternatives in the natural flow of events. First is imposed order and second is an affirmation of the base which gave freedom without chaos in the first place -- God's revelation in the Bible and His revelation through Christ.

The first, imposed order, is based on Humanism and has always and still does lead to misery! Man is NOT a machine. Personal peace and affluence do not bring happiness or answers to man's questions, and neither does authoritarian governments, like Communism. Only knowledge of the infinite-personal God/Creator of the universe and a relationship with Christ as Savior and Lord, which provides God's revelation for morals, values, and meaning for living. "This is truth that gives a unity to all knowledge and life."

And Schaeffer says that "Christians do not need to be a majority in order for this influence on society to occur." It is that second alternative that "we should take seriously."

[Gabe Herrmann · Rating 5 out of 5]

A wonderful book that is so packed I want to read it again. It takes you on a wonderful journey throughout history with a wonderful mindset of what the governments of today, and the philosophers of old were missing. I really loved this book, with my favorite chapters probably being the last three, as they are very relevant today.

[Kris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Insightful, intellectual, and impactful. I'll definitely be looking up more of Schaeffer's books in the future.

I love finding books like this that analyze the philosophy behind current and past cultures. It makes me realize I'm not alone when I see the motivations behind people's actions, and link it to a larger worldview. It's so awesome reading books like this for fun.

Schaeffer paints with broad strokes, so I can understand how some would think he generalizes too much. But this book is so small, and the ideas so widespread, that you have to accept that he's done his research and has informed ideas. He got a little doomsday-paranoid in the last chapter or so, but it didn't bother me. You have to realize that this book was published in 1975, with the Iron Curtain and the Cold War as ever-present realities of the time, so I'll give him a little slack. I wish Schaeffer were still around to update this book; I'd love to see him take into account modern technologies.

Would definitely recommend. Chapters that I found the most impactful are 7, 8, and 9.

[Josh Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book, written forty years ago (1976), is considered a classic work by Schaeffer. Not an easy read by any stretch, but one that will give the reader a solid foundation in world views and where they will lead.

The title is taken from a phrase found in the Bible in Ezekiel 33:10. I found some very interesting truths in the book that are playing out just as the author stated forty years ago.

[Mary · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a remarkable book: incisive, illuminating, and prophetic.

[Cade Adkison · Rating 5 out of 5]

“How Should We Then Live?” is an analysis of the way humans have viewed themselves (humanism) from the renaissance to today through art. The humanist mindset started at its pinnacle, the David by Michaelangelo, as the highest view of man. Throughout the course of history, however, philosophy has run its course and come to the conclusion that a worldview based on man being the solution is not sufficient and extremely shaky. Flash forward to today, the only way for man to create a philosophical system of faith in himself is by basing life purpose on two things: the ability to live life unbothered, and affluence. With the state of the world today, both of these ideas are more than inconsistent, and leads us to ask the question… shocker… how should we then live? The lives we live are based on our own worldview, and our worldview is only as strong as the pressure it can withstand. If my definition of success is on myself and my abilities, this view is only as profitable as my abilities are. God has given us the world and science to discover who He is, but we have taken it and turned it completely to man. The life of faith is the only foundation we can build our lives upon that can withstand any form of external pressure, and man as the source will never be the solution. This book was written in the 70’s, but rings even truer today.

[Kerianne Noel · Rating 4 out of 5]

I will start out by saying that I’ve gone back and forth on whether this is a three or four star book, and think maybe it’s really more like 3.5. I’m a huge fan of books that help put various historic movements in context, and Schaeffer’s extensive knowledge of art was especially nice to see included as one of the streams he traces (alongside science and religion) through which ideas are transmitted, as I have always loved my art history classes. Schaeffer does a good overall job of tracing the progression of Western thought, and discussing how, over time, it has led to many of the problems we see with modernity. This is a topic I’ve been doing a deep dive into with some of my reading this year, and I am interested, specifically, in Christian responses to modernity.

And yet... We all have our blinders. I think being a Protestant, one can’t help but take a certain view of the reformation just as I, being Catholic, am going to take a different one. (Spoiler alert: I think all schism is unfortunate and cutting off an entire group of believers from Our Eucharistic Lord is incredibly tragic.) This point matters greatly because he talks about how going back to a Biblical Christianity will prevent the fragmentation of society. But what has the church been doing at an incredibly rapid rate ever since the Reformation? Fragmenting. Because everyone has their own interpretation of God’s Word. At some point should there not be some kind of arbitrating authority on major issues concerning morality? Could Christ perhaps have left such an authority behind, having foreseen such a need?

I liked what he had to say about the new (then) and insidious ways technocrats have of imposing their will on a society, and how totalitarianism will tend to rise up to re-impose order on a chaotic society. This was written in 1976 and current events seem to bear this out. I also agree that Christians need to speak up about important social issues even when they are not in the majority. Where I have mixed feelings, is about Christians aligning themselves with any one political party - not something advocated for in the book, but something that happened indirectly in response to its ideas. The rise of the Christian evangelical voting block didn’t simply fix everything and created it’s own set of problems. So how SHOULD we then live? We are where we are. The center of the church is no longer in the West. I’m not sure how that will look for society as a whole, but fortunately my personal responsibilities are the same as they have always been: to pray, to love my neighbor, and to be willing to be made uncomfortable on behalf of the Gospel. To remember, always, that this world is not our home.

[Libby Powell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating and perceptive analysis of how Western thought has shifted over time. It's devastating, though perhaps not unexpected, to see the results of man-centered thinking to this day.

How should we then live?

“We are not only to know the right world view… but consciously to act upon that world view so as to influence society… across the whole spectrum of life, as much as we can to the extent of our individual and collective ability."

Simply put, we must live in accordance with the Truth.

[Amelie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow. This book is timely, insightful, and absolutely brilliant. Francis Schaeffer’s insights on the decline or morality and man’s quest for autonomy are profound, true, and sobering. I highly recommend it for thoughts on today’s moral and social issues!

[Josiah Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book by Schaeffer wasn’t my favorite or even his best book, but it was fully Schaeffer from beginning to end. Schaeffer interacts with many historical philosophers, artists, and thinkers, as he did in Escape from Reason and He is There and He is not Silent. But in this one he pushes further to the responsibility of the Christian - if the teachings of scripture are true, and all the thinkers of our day are missing that truth, how should we then live in light of that truth? What are the practical outworkings of our faith? If Christ owns everything down to the last French fry, what are our responsibilities? I feel like men such as Jordan Peterson would really benefit from Schaeffer because they can taste the truths that the world’s philosophers chased but never fell upon, and they know there is something more to all of this but are lost in the maze of man’s reasoning. Schaeffer can be a good guide out of that entrapment with books like these.

[Jeremy]

Interesting Amazon review/discussion here (re: Schaeffer's understanding of Aquinas). Here's another view (and a comment) of Schaeffer/Aquinas: Williams thinks that Schaeffer was right in about Aquinas in a qualified (general) sense. Some Reformed folks might go too far in rejecting natural law, but there is a reason that Schaeffer, Niebuhr, and others have looked at Catholicism as not going far enough in acknowledging the noetic effect of the fall.

Some have criticized Schaeffer because of his co-option by the Religious Right. Schaeffer did appreciate some of Rushdoony's work, but disagreed with Rushdooney on eschatology and law. Wikipedia has more information on the book and film series.

Videos available on YouTube:
Episode 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0Hr0...
Episode 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dglPC...
Episode 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4nP_...
Episode 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X7Wk...
Episode 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9AE-...
Episode 6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM4xO...
Episode 7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atSWv...
Episode 8: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEVD1...
Episode 9: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2VJk...
Episode 10: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IRuB...

[Bill · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm still working through some of this book, but I have absolutely loved what Schaeffer has to say, especially in regards to the dangers of a society that is primarily concerned with personal peace and affluence. He asserts that such a society will eventually allow an authoritative type of government to rise into existence out of a fear of losing "comfort". This certainly does not happen quickly, but is something that develops over time.

Interesting, but our culture today bears the marks of Schaeffer's description. When I speak with young people today about their hopes and dreams, and about their definition of success, they nearly always communicate this idea of "comfort"--of personal peace and affluence. They are willing to sacrifice much for achieving, and maintaining, this aspect of their life. To Schaeffer, this is an extremely dangerous place to be as a society.

Schaeffer also challenged me, personally, when he talked about the industrial age, and the crimes against humanity that occurred during that period of history. People were abused for the sake of the accumulation of wealth. Schaeffer criticized the wealthy for not using their wealth compassionately. Wealth has been given for a purpose-that we might be a blessing to others. At what points will my generation be critiqued for our lack of concern for the poor and oppressed?

This will be a review in process...more to come.

[Abrahamus · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was a life-changer. Schaeffer transformed my understanding of history, especially the history of philosophical thought, and really enabled me to make sense of so many things that had been gnawing at me for years—ever since I was introduced to the likes of Nietzsche in an Introduction to Philosophy class at a state university. Additionally, his method of discussing developments in the arts right alongside of the philosophical transformations was an approach to history which really struck a chord with me.

One thing I will always remember is that I was in the middle of reading this book for the first time on Sept. 11, 2001. Schaeffer's grim predictions (originally published 1976) in one of the latter chapters regarding the future threat of global terrorism and the correspondent increase in statist control and loss of individual liberty has resonated most prophetically in the aftermath of those events.

[Renee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Schaeffer is not only an well educated man but also an excellent writer. He wrote about history and art in a way that makes you want to read more about the topic yourself. His description of how civilization have been shape with godly values or the lack thereof makes you think about what happened in the past and what is happening here and now.

His overview of how a generation that is self centered and in search of material wealth effect that describe in 1970 are still valid now
- economic breakdown
-war or treat of war
- Chaos of violence (terrorism )
- Radical redistribution of the wealth of the world
-a growing shortage of food and other natural resources

Here is a quote from the book
"This book is written in the hope that this generation may turn from that greatest wickedness, the placing of any created thing in the place of the Creator, and that this generation may get its feet out of the paths of death and may live"

[Kofi Opoku · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read again in December 2023. This is a masterpiece of fine thinking.

Thought-provoking and very relevant to the times we live in. Francis Shaeffer argues for the need for an objective moral base and explains why moral relativism is ultimately bound to implode. He does so using historical facts, and so the book serves as a good treatise on Western history and philosophy as well.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good. Schaefer was a fine thinker and teacher. Solid narration.

[JT Stead · Rating 5 out of 5]

Simply one of the most brilliant books I have read. I’m sitting in awe and sadness of the truths presented in this book. Schaeffer is clear in his cultural analysis and prophetic in so many ways of 2021. For a book published in 1979 I am blown away. Ideas have consequences and Christians should know what the world’s ideas have been and are so that we can bring them to absurdity and show that truth is only found in the personal triune God and His word!

I wish every Christian would read this book and see how society that abandons the Christian worldview is only left with authoritarianism to fill the void of what “ought” to be. We need more Paul’s who are willing to stand in the public square and tear down the world’s ideological strongholds and point people, the state, and the world to Christ.

[Tim Dorman · Rating 4 out of 5]

How Should we than live had a profund effect on my spirituality and understanding of the culture that I live in. Schaeffer was one of the most brilliant thinkers of his generation and it shines through in this profound work. Schaeffer traces the decline of culture and thought that has occured within Christianity. Of praticular interest to me was his emphasis on the decline of art in culture and how it evolved from a God honoring tradition to post-modernism confusion. He shows for example a comparison of paintings by Rembrandt in the reformation and a painting by Salvador Dali in modern times. The Salvador Dali painting is of praticular interest because it shows an almost ghost like beardless Christ who is painted so lightly that small ships are visible through his body. It demonstrates the rise of man's thoughts and man's works over God's. Schaeffer also breaks down for us the way in which a decline in Science, and the philosophy of Science led man to believe that he was supreme and autonomous. Man essentially became God with his ability to unlock the secrets of the Universe. This thought which began to manifest itself all the way back in the Renissance, continued into the age of enlightenment and ended with the Philosophy of Charles Darwin. In this book I learned more than I ever have about how our society (Western Society) became what it is today and who were the movers and shakers of that campaign. Ours is now a world in Post-Modernism and it is our duty now more than ever to stand up to the philosophy of the age. Christianity is a timeless religion and it should never give up on it's core beliefs and it should never give in to the prevailing trends of society that subvert those core values.

[Kevin Greenlee · Rating 1 out of 5]

In some ways this isn't a fair review. It isn't fair because I simply skimmed through the book (how I came to do that is a story for another time). Still, I feel that skimming gave me a pretty good idea of the book, and it's not a very positive one.

There's no denying that Schaeffer is intelligent, in that he attempts to tackle all of Western civilization, and has obviously tried to gain a vast knowledge of it. The problem is that most of his understanding of what he has approached is wrong.

His analysis is also reductive. He seems to see all of human history as some sort of battle between placing God at the center of our worldview, or putting Man there.

The problem with this is that's it's horribly reductive. Things are far more complicated than this, and in forcing them into this mold they often become terribly distorted. For example, the question of the relationship between particulars and universals that was of great importance in Medieval Philosophy is somehow made into a quest to find meaning (i.e. purpose) for particulars, when it was a linguistic and metaphysical inquiry.

Also, God became man. This destroys his paradigm.