What do you think?
Rate this book
How Now Shall We Live
This important book explores a wide range of ethical and cultural issues. Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey show how the truth of Christianity can change the world. Internationally known author Charles Colson believes this to be the most significant book of his career. It carries a profound message needed by the church today and by individual Christians. The central theme is that faith in Jesus Christ is more than a private relationship with God; it's a way of seeing, understanding, and changing the world. Christian faith brings with it basic ideas and beliefs that are the answers and counters to the world's philosophies. Christians often feel a loss of confidence in the face of secular philosophy as expressed in the culture of our age. The claims of scientists, New Age beliefs, shifting morality and so on can confuse. The authors provide the tools to interpret and confront the false, bankrupt ideas of the world and to use the truth of Christianity to make a difference for good. They help their readers to evaluate their own lives and values. Colson and Pearcey offer the challenge -- How Now Shall We Live? This is a message for the church in the new millennium. Change in the world and in culture will not be achieved chiefly through political or social means, but by individual Christians knowing their faith and daring to be agents of God's grace.
Paperback
First published September 1, 1999
393 people are currently reading
3279 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 167 reviews
August 26, 2011
This book sat on my shelves for nearly ten years before I finally read it. I should have read it sooner! It is an excellent commentary on the nature of the worldview conflicts that engage our nation even now. If you want to have some help understanding how issues of the day can be viewed through the lens of the Bible, read this book. If you want to engage more knowledgeably with the world around you, read this book. If you want ideas about how to live your life intentionally in light of creation, fall, and redemption, read this book.
January 8, 2011
This was not an easy book to read for me, because English is my second language and Colson uses a lot of difficult words. But with a dictionary at hand I wrestled through the pages... what an amazing insights! I LOVE this book, it explains why a Christian worldview is so important and why we should stop hiding in our churches. A must read if you are interested in apologetics.
January 4, 2015
I have to admit that I was disappointed in this book. While some parts were riveting, other aspects of the theology taught were sorely lacking. Probably the worst part was how he kept referring to Roman Catholics as "Christians" and quoting Pope Jean Paul. Other elements included a more "social gospel" feel than I think is warranted, endorsement of public schools, a weird take on the Big Bang, and a very evidential perspective on epistemology and apologetics, as well as several other schizophrenic aspects of worldview.
However, with all it's flaws, it will still remain a very underlined copy in my library, and several observations were quite invaluable. I've included several quotations below of a few of my favorite points:
"Everyone worships some kind of God. Everyone believes in some kind of deity- even if that deity is an impersonal substance such as matter, energy, or nature. That's why the Bible preaches against idolatry, not atheism. Naturalism may pose as science, marshaling facts and figures, but it is a religion." [pg. 54]
"But in light of our historical heritage we dare not give in to despair. That would be not only a sin (lack of faith in God's sovereignty) but also a misreading of the times. To leave the cultural battlefield now would be to desert the cause just when we are on the threshold of a great opportunity.
In recent years, all the grand propositions advanced over the past century have fallen, one by one, like toy soldiers. The twentieth century was the age of ideology, of the great "isms": communism, socialism, Nazism, liberalism, scientism. Everywhere, ideologues nursed visions of creating the ideal society by some utopian scheme. But today, all the major ideological constructions are being tossed on the ash heap of history. All that remains is the cynicism of postmodernism, with its bankrupt assertions that there is no objective truth, or, that we are free to create our own truth as long as we understand that it is nothing more than a subjective dream, a comforting illusion.
And as the ringing ideologies crumble, people are caught in an impasse: Having believed that individual autonomy was the holy grail that would lead to liberation, they now see that it has led only to moral chaos and state coercion. The time is ripe for a message that the social peace and personal fulfillment people really crave are available only in Christianity." [pg. 290]
However, with all it's flaws, it will still remain a very underlined copy in my library, and several observations were quite invaluable. I've included several quotations below of a few of my favorite points:
"Everyone worships some kind of God. Everyone believes in some kind of deity- even if that deity is an impersonal substance such as matter, energy, or nature. That's why the Bible preaches against idolatry, not atheism. Naturalism may pose as science, marshaling facts and figures, but it is a religion." [pg. 54]
"But in light of our historical heritage we dare not give in to despair. That would be not only a sin (lack of faith in God's sovereignty) but also a misreading of the times. To leave the cultural battlefield now would be to desert the cause just when we are on the threshold of a great opportunity.
In recent years, all the grand propositions advanced over the past century have fallen, one by one, like toy soldiers. The twentieth century was the age of ideology, of the great "isms": communism, socialism, Nazism, liberalism, scientism. Everywhere, ideologues nursed visions of creating the ideal society by some utopian scheme. But today, all the major ideological constructions are being tossed on the ash heap of history. All that remains is the cynicism of postmodernism, with its bankrupt assertions that there is no objective truth, or, that we are free to create our own truth as long as we understand that it is nothing more than a subjective dream, a comforting illusion.
And as the ringing ideologies crumble, people are caught in an impasse: Having believed that individual autonomy was the holy grail that would lead to liberation, they now see that it has led only to moral chaos and state coercion. The time is ripe for a message that the social peace and personal fulfillment people really crave are available only in Christianity." [pg. 290]
January 14, 2019
I consider myself to be a Bible-believing evangelical Christian, but I’m certain after reading How Now Shall We Live? by Charles Colson with Nancy Pearcey that they wouldn’t consider me to be what I just described myself to be. How Now Shall We Live? is one of those books that touches on a lot of points with which I agree, a lot on which I have even preached, but it is also one of those books that makes me want to scream, “Get your facts straight!”
I have problems with everything from the non-answer to the charge of fundamentalist Christians wanting to restrict liberty on p. 32 (Colson uses misdirection to point to the Soviet Union rather than answering the charge.) through his argument that using strict controls “rigs” a scientific experiment (p. 72), his misconstruing of how information theory would relate to DNA (p. 75), his alarmism regarding EC (extracorporeal gestation) and its possibility of saving the lives of premature babies because of its potential for creating life from fertilized artificial eggs (p. 127), misinterpretation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s idea of social contract [how can one NOT believe in social institutions as they claim and write a book like On The Social Contract that states in Chapter VIII that the change from the state of nature to the civil state, “…substitutes justice for instinct in his behavior and gives his actions a moral quality they previously lacked.” as claimed on p. 170?], and representing tai chi and “therapeutic touch” as being “New Age” and occultic (p. 263) to his statement that use of the verb “creating” within art forms is a slap in the Creator’s face (p. 446). I have problems with Colson’s and Pearcey’s idea that believing in a Creator means, of necessity, that one must believe that God cannot have used the tools of a created nature to evolve humanity [He insists that the choice between “creation” and “evolution” MUST be a choice between being “creatures of a personal God” or “products of a mindless process.” (p. 92)].
Although I find much of this screed disguised as a volume to be unhelpful, I can’t totally dismiss all of the points made by the co-authors. Indeed, some aspects of the book mirror matters which I have stressed in my own preaching and teaching. For example, on p. 34, the co-authors observe, “…to do this [carrying out God’s work], we must translate God’s revelation into the language of the world. We must be able to speak to the scientist in the language of the scientist, to the artist in the language of art, to the politician in the language of politics.” I agree with the book’s initial sentiment on intellectual curiosity, as well: “I am not merely absorbing knowledge for its own sake. I am understanding God’s creative handiwork.” (p. 35) And though I feel like Colson and Pearcey stray from their good intentions, I find this idea much neglected in modern Christianity. And the authors are quite right that modern society rebuffs the idea of sin, quoting a television special on The Seven Deadly Sins where the narrator says, “The seven deadly sins are not evil acts, but rather universal human compulsions.” (p. 188) Even if the latter part of that statement is true, that doesn’t take away from murder, theft, and perjury as evil acts. I also appreciated that the authors noted the excellent volume from the last century by Karl Menninger on this subject, Whatever Became of Sin? (p. 169).
Indeed, even though the book has a lot of positives to say about what the Christian’s attitude toward art should be (sadly, I know too many Christians who lump all art in with the excesses of artistic self-indulgence), I think they go too far in discounting certain popular forms of art. Even if one cannot argue that the lyrics or intent of certain artists is overtly Christian, it is hard to argue that the musical compositions and harmonies of The Beatles are not artistic (though the authors do so on p. 470). But despite an obvious prejudice for hymnody over contemporary worship songs in the church (pp. 471-472), the authors make a very valid point about “art” which is purely destructive. Their argument is as devastating as the self-refuting argument against relativism (“If everything is relative, so is your statement that everything is relative.”) when they write: “But art that attacks all standards ends up destroying itself—because eventually artistic standards are attacked and cast aside.” (p. 447) Yet, just before that (p. 446) the authors argue that prior to the modern era, it would have shocking to suggest that an artist has created something new. Yet, isn’t that exactly what believers are supposed to do when expressing the Imago Dei (image of God) through creativity?
My favorite assertion in the book is: “But God does not call his people simply to run around putting out fires after the secular world has lighted them. He calls us to light our own fires, to renew culture.” (p. 450) If the book had more of a vision toward than a destructive stare against, it would have resonated more with me. As it was, just when I would find myself in agreement with a neglected principle or ideal on one page, I would be devastated by oversimplification, adversarial hyperbole, and factual error on another.
I have problems with everything from the non-answer to the charge of fundamentalist Christians wanting to restrict liberty on p. 32 (Colson uses misdirection to point to the Soviet Union rather than answering the charge.) through his argument that using strict controls “rigs” a scientific experiment (p. 72), his misconstruing of how information theory would relate to DNA (p. 75), his alarmism regarding EC (extracorporeal gestation) and its possibility of saving the lives of premature babies because of its potential for creating life from fertilized artificial eggs (p. 127), misinterpretation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s idea of social contract [how can one NOT believe in social institutions as they claim and write a book like On The Social Contract that states in Chapter VIII that the change from the state of nature to the civil state, “…substitutes justice for instinct in his behavior and gives his actions a moral quality they previously lacked.” as claimed on p. 170?], and representing tai chi and “therapeutic touch” as being “New Age” and occultic (p. 263) to his statement that use of the verb “creating” within art forms is a slap in the Creator’s face (p. 446). I have problems with Colson’s and Pearcey’s idea that believing in a Creator means, of necessity, that one must believe that God cannot have used the tools of a created nature to evolve humanity [He insists that the choice between “creation” and “evolution” MUST be a choice between being “creatures of a personal God” or “products of a mindless process.” (p. 92)].
Although I find much of this screed disguised as a volume to be unhelpful, I can’t totally dismiss all of the points made by the co-authors. Indeed, some aspects of the book mirror matters which I have stressed in my own preaching and teaching. For example, on p. 34, the co-authors observe, “…to do this [carrying out God’s work], we must translate God’s revelation into the language of the world. We must be able to speak to the scientist in the language of the scientist, to the artist in the language of art, to the politician in the language of politics.” I agree with the book’s initial sentiment on intellectual curiosity, as well: “I am not merely absorbing knowledge for its own sake. I am understanding God’s creative handiwork.” (p. 35) And though I feel like Colson and Pearcey stray from their good intentions, I find this idea much neglected in modern Christianity. And the authors are quite right that modern society rebuffs the idea of sin, quoting a television special on The Seven Deadly Sins where the narrator says, “The seven deadly sins are not evil acts, but rather universal human compulsions.” (p. 188) Even if the latter part of that statement is true, that doesn’t take away from murder, theft, and perjury as evil acts. I also appreciated that the authors noted the excellent volume from the last century by Karl Menninger on this subject, Whatever Became of Sin? (p. 169).
Indeed, even though the book has a lot of positives to say about what the Christian’s attitude toward art should be (sadly, I know too many Christians who lump all art in with the excesses of artistic self-indulgence), I think they go too far in discounting certain popular forms of art. Even if one cannot argue that the lyrics or intent of certain artists is overtly Christian, it is hard to argue that the musical compositions and harmonies of The Beatles are not artistic (though the authors do so on p. 470). But despite an obvious prejudice for hymnody over contemporary worship songs in the church (pp. 471-472), the authors make a very valid point about “art” which is purely destructive. Their argument is as devastating as the self-refuting argument against relativism (“If everything is relative, so is your statement that everything is relative.”) when they write: “But art that attacks all standards ends up destroying itself—because eventually artistic standards are attacked and cast aside.” (p. 447) Yet, just before that (p. 446) the authors argue that prior to the modern era, it would have shocking to suggest that an artist has created something new. Yet, isn’t that exactly what believers are supposed to do when expressing the Imago Dei (image of God) through creativity?
My favorite assertion in the book is: “But God does not call his people simply to run around putting out fires after the secular world has lighted them. He calls us to light our own fires, to renew culture.” (p. 450) If the book had more of a vision toward than a destructive stare against, it would have resonated more with me. As it was, just when I would find myself in agreement with a neglected principle or ideal on one page, I would be devastated by oversimplification, adversarial hyperbole, and factual error on another.
February 9, 2011
Colson has a excellent presentation of the state of the conflict of worldviews and role Christians plays and what it has to offer. His main these is that Christianity has the best answers for the human condition. Written primarily to fellow Christians, note the “We” in the title, those with differing world views will probably not find it persuasive, but they will find the Christian worldview clearly set forth, with a broad survey of the evidence for it, without getting lost in all the technicalities of the various debates. Christians will find this valuable for laying out the challenges facing the church but the popular culture, many of them sadly unrecognized by the average Christians. I found particularly valuable the many accounts used to illuminate the main points, many drawn from Colson’s work with Prison Fellowship. It is a book that every Christian should read, as well as anyone seeking to really understand evangelical Christianity, beyond the slanted stereotypes presented in popular culture.
April 18, 2013
"How Now Shall We Live" was the heart cry of a people who lived during the Jewish exile from the Promised Land, yet it is no less the unspoken prayer of the faithful today. As Chuck Colson puts it, "We live in a culture that is at best morally indifferent ... in which Judeo-Christian values are mocked ... in which violence, banality, meanness, and disintegrating personal behavior are destroying civility and endangering the very life of our communities." It is no small wonder that Colson--the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries and author of several renowned Christian works--considers this book the most important work of his life.
June 21, 2011
Obviously not a novel, but it's pretty boss. My faith was completely reaffirmed. All the evidence and examples are superb. Read it. Essential for Christians and Agnostics and Skeptics . . . basically everyone.
April 8, 2013
This book is blowing me away! Great insight into why and how our postmodern culture has come about. A must read for concerned citizens and the next generation of Christian leaders.
May 4, 2024
This book is more than 20 years old, yet it remains relevant in discussing our cultural moment. Filled with impactful stories and important teachings, I appreciate this book that calls us to live with a Biblical worldview in all facets of life.
Read
March 17, 2025Like drinking water out of a fire hydrant. I need to sit on this one for a while.
March 18, 2014
One of the most comprehensive books about approaching life I have ever read. Colston sets out to discuss the Christian worldview - not necessarily religion - and covers a tremendous amount of ground when doing so.
The book can be shoddily be summed up as an in-depth look at how a person's/society's view of 3 things (creation, fall and redemption) shape their reaction to most every decision and action in life. From our politics to parenting to pop culture, Colston takes time to explain how the Christian worldview interacts with current trends in the world and emerges as the logical, well reasoned position. The way he walks through powerful movements in culture as a reaction to individual worldviews is very enlightening. It's rather sad he's not around today, because I would love to see some kind of update from the man himself.
I gave this book 5 stars because it is the kind of book that will serve as a reference piece for the rest of my life. I doubt I will read it cover to cover again because the material at time can be dense, but there is powerful thought in Colston's (best?) work.
The book can be shoddily be summed up as an in-depth look at how a person's/society's view of 3 things (creation, fall and redemption) shape their reaction to most every decision and action in life. From our politics to parenting to pop culture, Colston takes time to explain how the Christian worldview interacts with current trends in the world and emerges as the logical, well reasoned position. The way he walks through powerful movements in culture as a reaction to individual worldviews is very enlightening. It's rather sad he's not around today, because I would love to see some kind of update from the man himself.
I gave this book 5 stars because it is the kind of book that will serve as a reference piece for the rest of my life. I doubt I will read it cover to cover again because the material at time can be dense, but there is powerful thought in Colston's (best?) work.
October 8, 2018
I read this 15 or so years ago, but now as a teacher of upper high school, I am looking for some books to introduce my students to Christian worldview. This seems a good candidate. Although long, it is littered with interesting stories to illustrate its points, and is very readable.
He approaches worldview with three questions:
1. Where did we come from? Who are we? (Creation)
2. What has gone wrong with the world? (Fall)
3. What can we do to fix it? (Redemption)
Our answers to these questions impact everything we do, from family life to politics, from art and music to economics. Throughout the book these questions are returned to time and time again as Christianity is compared and contrasted mainly with a secular humanist worldview.
He approaches worldview with three questions:
1. Where did we come from? Who are we? (Creation)
2. What has gone wrong with the world? (Fall)
3. What can we do to fix it? (Redemption)
Our answers to these questions impact everything we do, from family life to politics, from art and music to economics. Throughout the book these questions are returned to time and time again as Christianity is compared and contrasted mainly with a secular humanist worldview.
August 2, 2012
Every one of us have a worldview. As a Christian, it's important that I understand my worldview and how it determines my place in this world and the society I live and participate in. Often a person can think they know what their worldview is only to find they behave in a way contrary to the worldview they want to have, just because society raised them that way. This book helps Christians navigate all of this brilliantly. It's challenging but so important.
June 18, 2017
Amazing book! Beautifully written and thought provoking.
December 13, 2024
This took me over two years to finish, but is one of the best books I’ve ever read. It’s filled with both compelling data and rich, captivating case studies and stories. Although written in 2000, nearly 25 years ago (which, these days, equates to basically a century of change in tech and culture), it is eerily accurate in diagnosing the biggest threat to Christian faith: it is not other religions, but anti-religion. Colson makes a logical argument that Christianity is the only worldview that actually addresses reality as it is. He uses the creation, fall, redemption, and restoration framework to prove this claim. He then challenges us on, “how now shall we live?” How should we as believers live in light of our faith? Instead of living separate from society, culture, science, etc (all the things that seem “opposed” to our faith), how do we go about REDEEMING these? I’d recommend this book to anyone!
May 23, 2025
Now that it’s been a quarter century since this book came out, I think it’s safe to say that it is probably going to become a classic. There are certainly specifics which date it and are no longer accurate in 2025, but the overall message about how the Christian faith offers the best answers to the fundamental worldview questions is absolutely rock-solid! A thorough reading of it will help you more clearly understand why you believe what you believe and how to better explain that belief to a doubting world. It is definitely a book that is worth reading and you have any interest in it, I would definitely encourage you pick up a copy!
Favorite Quote: There are three central questions any worldview must answer:
1. Creation - Where did we come from, and who are we?
2. Fall - What has gone wrong with the world?
3. Redemption - What can we do to fix it?
Favorite Quote: There are three central questions any worldview must answer:
1. Creation - Where did we come from, and who are we?
2. Fall - What has gone wrong with the world?
3. Redemption - What can we do to fix it?
November 15, 2021
Absolutely incredible. This book has it all for apologetics and is extraordinarily prophetic and relevant considering it was written in the 90’s. A must read for all Christians and a great book for secularists in order to understand the detriment to the world without Christianity.
March 15, 2024
This book helps us get to the root of what we believe as Christians and how it impacts our daily lives. As I read it, I couldn’t help but think about how I can make my worldview known. Unlike a lot of Christian books, this one was very practical. I would highly recommend that every Christian, whether firmly entrenched in their views or still figuring things out, read this book.
January 30, 2021
Everyone has a worldview that shapes the way they make decisions. For some, their worldview is well known and understood, for others it operates more from the subconscious. As Christians, Colson argues, we should find our worldview in the Bible, know it, understand it, and be prepared and willing to clearly articulate it. This book provides a good starting place to accomplish this life-long endeavor.
July 1, 2023
An absolute must read for anyone who is a Christian or considers themselves a believer in Jesus
February 4, 2025
I read this as part of the Colson Fellows program. It is an excellent explanation of worldview. I will definitely reread it with my teens!
May 2, 2025
I read this book almost 20 years ago. It’s amazing how current it is.
February 12, 2018
I decided to read this book because of my growing interest in the ways Christians think about engaging with the public sphere. Overall, it is a long book, but it is an easy read. Written for a lay audience, it sort of sets out an agenda that best resembles a rear-guard, last ditch effort to do what the culture wars of the 80's and early 90's failed to do: "win" the culture.
Although I rated the book with a single star, it does have a few decent qualities. The bibliography and recommended reading lists are surprisingly substantial. I also found myself agreeing with some of the conclusions the authors arrived at. Mostly in their responses to contemporary "scientism" that likes to sneak in the philosophical. I also appreciated their small attempts to hedge against trying to dominate others with the Christian "worldview" in the public square.
However, the book carries with it too many errors that misinform its lay-audience. First, the authors frame these issues within the concept of worldview. While I do not disagree with the notion that we all have worldviews, framing the discussion in this way is too abstract and misses the very concrete and material influences.
Second, the concept of "worldview" is nebulous. For example, while I do not doubt we all have a worldview, it isn't exactly a clearly defined concept, and they make little effort to help the reader here. Another example of how incomplete this definition is, the authors seem to assume that a worldview must explain: creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. However, why do they assume this very Christian way of framing worldview? Who are their sources for this way of framing? Why assume all worldviews should be judged in this way? Only the already convinced will agree with this...
Third, the authors assume that there is a singular Christian worldview. But why think that? They smoothly go between various Christians, Scripture, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, the Middle Ages and the Reformation, etc. etc., paying little regard to the historical differences between these individuals or these historical contexts. Yet, we know that there is a major difference between Aquinas and Calvin on the understanding of how nature and grace interact. There are major differences between how Christians in the Middle Ages interacted with the world around them and how Christians living today interact with the world. Also, they fail to adequately deal with Christian traditions that have no issue with some of what they include in their interpretation of the Christian worldview. Their favorite boogeyman, evolution, is something Roman Catholicism, plus many other Protestants, have no issue with (so long as the theory is not pushed to include metaphysical conclusions).
The strangeness of their method is seen in the way the authors include various non-Christian cultures/authors in their arguments. For example, there is a frequent use of Greco-Roman culture to support conclusions. Colson notes how he begins with Plato in arguing for the Christian worldview, while understandings of Greco-Roman art are used to criticize modern art. While I understand an argument could be made for its use, the use of natural law arguments, something the authors are friendly towards, one must give an adequate reason as to why we frame the dangers of drifting from the worldview categories of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration, and yet include ways of interpreting the world that ultimately move against these categories. It is especially important to do so given that some Christian theologians they drink from, tend to be very antagonistic to natural law/theology. This antagonism, interestingly, shows up in strange ways, like when the authors seem to set up Protestantism as the pinnacle of Christian progress (after all, it is the Reformation that gives us the work-ethic that gives us wealth *rolls eyes*). Ultimately, it seems like an ad hoc vision that seems to be sometimes , arguing for a "western" culture, rather than a "Christian" culture, and sometimes arguing for a "Christian" culture where there are failings in "western" culture.
Another way this ad hoc vision reveals itself is in the ways cultural failures seem to be talked about. Anything gone culturally awry seems to be the fault of those evolutionists, secularists, and relativists. While all the positives of the "Christian culture" being highlighted.
One final thing, as I sort of suggested above in different ways, this is a very particular vision that widens or narrows where the authors seem fit. The particular vision they argue for is a conservative Evangelical/Fundamentalists vision, yet, at their whim, they often pull from the wider theological pool without further explanation (so long as it isn't a theological Liberal). There particular vision they are arguing for is too narrow, and too wrapped up in modernity, to be of use here. They are also not self-critical enough in how they make use of the wider theological tradition.
More could be said.
Although I rated the book with a single star, it does have a few decent qualities. The bibliography and recommended reading lists are surprisingly substantial. I also found myself agreeing with some of the conclusions the authors arrived at. Mostly in their responses to contemporary "scientism" that likes to sneak in the philosophical. I also appreciated their small attempts to hedge against trying to dominate others with the Christian "worldview" in the public square.
However, the book carries with it too many errors that misinform its lay-audience. First, the authors frame these issues within the concept of worldview. While I do not disagree with the notion that we all have worldviews, framing the discussion in this way is too abstract and misses the very concrete and material influences.
Second, the concept of "worldview" is nebulous. For example, while I do not doubt we all have a worldview, it isn't exactly a clearly defined concept, and they make little effort to help the reader here. Another example of how incomplete this definition is, the authors seem to assume that a worldview must explain: creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. However, why do they assume this very Christian way of framing worldview? Who are their sources for this way of framing? Why assume all worldviews should be judged in this way? Only the already convinced will agree with this...
Third, the authors assume that there is a singular Christian worldview. But why think that? They smoothly go between various Christians, Scripture, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, the Middle Ages and the Reformation, etc. etc., paying little regard to the historical differences between these individuals or these historical contexts. Yet, we know that there is a major difference between Aquinas and Calvin on the understanding of how nature and grace interact. There are major differences between how Christians in the Middle Ages interacted with the world around them and how Christians living today interact with the world. Also, they fail to adequately deal with Christian traditions that have no issue with some of what they include in their interpretation of the Christian worldview. Their favorite boogeyman, evolution, is something Roman Catholicism, plus many other Protestants, have no issue with (so long as the theory is not pushed to include metaphysical conclusions).
The strangeness of their method is seen in the way the authors include various non-Christian cultures/authors in their arguments. For example, there is a frequent use of Greco-Roman culture to support conclusions. Colson notes how he begins with Plato in arguing for the Christian worldview, while understandings of Greco-Roman art are used to criticize modern art. While I understand an argument could be made for its use, the use of natural law arguments, something the authors are friendly towards, one must give an adequate reason as to why we frame the dangers of drifting from the worldview categories of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration, and yet include ways of interpreting the world that ultimately move against these categories. It is especially important to do so given that some Christian theologians they drink from, tend to be very antagonistic to natural law/theology. This antagonism, interestingly, shows up in strange ways, like when the authors seem to set up Protestantism as the pinnacle of Christian progress (after all, it is the Reformation that gives us the work-ethic that gives us wealth *rolls eyes*). Ultimately, it seems like an ad hoc vision that seems to be sometimes , arguing for a "western" culture, rather than a "Christian" culture, and sometimes arguing for a "Christian" culture where there are failings in "western" culture.
Another way this ad hoc vision reveals itself is in the ways cultural failures seem to be talked about. Anything gone culturally awry seems to be the fault of those evolutionists, secularists, and relativists. While all the positives of the "Christian culture" being highlighted.
One final thing, as I sort of suggested above in different ways, this is a very particular vision that widens or narrows where the authors seem fit. The particular vision they argue for is a conservative Evangelical/Fundamentalists vision, yet, at their whim, they often pull from the wider theological pool without further explanation (so long as it isn't a theological Liberal). There particular vision they are arguing for is too narrow, and too wrapped up in modernity, to be of use here. They are also not self-critical enough in how they make use of the wider theological tradition.
More could be said.
March 6, 2014
A very definite break down of almost every aspects of Western life with inspiring examples of how Christ can transform people, cities, communities and potentially nations. While I didn't quite agree with all of Colson's views (his anti-welfare stance was puzzling for me as a liberal Christian), over all this work creates awe for the work of the Lord and encouragement in the area of how Christians can apply their beliefs to help change the world. The examples of different Christian projects, individuals and programs was very enlightening. Not an easy read but worth pushing through.
July 26, 2014
"Recorded on September 12, 2001, this audio presentation has a frightening immediacy and an honest reality. In it Colson defined a course of biblical action, quoting the "Just War Doctrine" developed by St. Augustine in the Fourth century."
I gave it a five star rating for its historicity. And am going to keep it to give to the family. These days history gets rewritten so easily that I would like my family to have some facts and truth for the future.
I gave it a five star rating for its historicity. And am going to keep it to give to the family. These days history gets rewritten so easily that I would like my family to have some facts and truth for the future.
August 20, 2022
Invaluable reading for those who want to understand the state of our culture and how Christians can remain not just relevant, but influential in our culture.
This is not an easy read. It needs to be read slowly, digested carefully, and applied intentionally across all disciplines of life.
If you want to understand and appreciate the value of a biblical worldview today, this is the book for you!
This is not an easy read. It needs to be read slowly, digested carefully, and applied intentionally across all disciplines of life.
If you want to understand and appreciate the value of a biblical worldview today, this is the book for you!
November 3, 2013
What is the difference between a Christian Reconstructionist and Chuck Colson? The former embarrasses the latter by making specific applications. Technically speaking, the book is well-written and quite moving. Colson appears to give away the store on crucial doctrines like salvation.
January 29, 2023
His will extends far past us, past the walls we erect. Light only illuminates when it is brought into the darkness.
March 3, 2025
This book acts as if it is explaining some profound thinking but most of its arguments do not argue for its claims nor does the evidence provided support those claims. For example, the text may say something such as, _______ proves an intelligent designer, therfore Christianity. The problem here is that you argued for an intelligent designer. Not Christianity. There are a multitude of ways the universe could have an intelligent designer that do not involve Christianity. There are other arguments where the author essentially has a blank line and puts Christianity on it to answer the questions despite there being infinite other possibilities that could fill that line.
Some of the arguments simply do no make sense. For example, calling scientists "cheaters" for organizing and conducting experiments in a methododical way rather than letting the universe run its course. Yes, scientist are "cheaters" for doing science (sarcasm).
Many of the arguments the author makes for Christianity can also be flipped against Christianity by altering the words. For example, the author will say something along the lines of, kids are being indoctrinated into believing science because of their science classrooms, science TV shows, and the lack of Christian teachings in their upbringing. Now, reverse the situations. Kids are being indoctrinated into believing Christianity because of their Christian classrooms, Christian TV shows, and lack of science teachings in their upbringing. How do we know science is not actually the correct path and it is the Christians who are those indoctrinated in false beliefs? This book assumes its viewpoints are correct.
There are also some really poorly designed arguments that only work because of how they are presented and if presented another way completely fall to pieces. The author creates situations that specifically support their argument while failing to address those that do not. Not to mention minor details of hypocrisy and finger pointing towards non Christian communities.
Overall, I agree with some of the concepts in this book, such as an intelligent designer, but the paths getting there are flawed beyond belief.
Some of the arguments simply do no make sense. For example, calling scientists "cheaters" for organizing and conducting experiments in a methododical way rather than letting the universe run its course. Yes, scientist are "cheaters" for doing science (sarcasm).
Many of the arguments the author makes for Christianity can also be flipped against Christianity by altering the words. For example, the author will say something along the lines of, kids are being indoctrinated into believing science because of their science classrooms, science TV shows, and the lack of Christian teachings in their upbringing. Now, reverse the situations. Kids are being indoctrinated into believing Christianity because of their Christian classrooms, Christian TV shows, and lack of science teachings in their upbringing. How do we know science is not actually the correct path and it is the Christians who are those indoctrinated in false beliefs? This book assumes its viewpoints are correct.
There are also some really poorly designed arguments that only work because of how they are presented and if presented another way completely fall to pieces. The author creates situations that specifically support their argument while failing to address those that do not. Not to mention minor details of hypocrisy and finger pointing towards non Christian communities.
Overall, I agree with some of the concepts in this book, such as an intelligent designer, but the paths getting there are flawed beyond belief.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 3, 2017
How Now Shall We Live? Chuck Colson and Nancy Pearcy. Wheaton: Tyndale, 1999. Hardcover. 576 pages.
I bought this book at a used book sale by our library. I was interesting in it because I knew that Charles Colson was a Christian author. (He is the former Nixon advisor who became a born-again Christian after going to jail and later developed a prison ministry.) Also, the title of the book, "How Now Shall We Live?," appears to be a reference to Francis Schaeffer's book, How Should We Then Live?, and I am a big fan of Francis Schaeffer.
My idea that this was a reference to Francis Schaeffer was confirmed when I saw that the book was dedicated to the memory of Francis Schaeffer. "We dedicate this book to the memory of Francis A. Schaeffer, whose ministry at L'Abri was instrumental in Nancy's conversion and whose works have had a profound influence on my own understanding of Christianity as a total worldview." "Nancy" appears to be a ghostwriter - the book is credited as written by Charles Colson in big letters and Nancy Pearcey in smaller letters.
The book is pretty easy to read. It is divided into short chapters so I read one or two each night before I went to bed. It is pretty good for this purpose.
Basically the book goes over some current issues as a sort of a continuation of some of the issues that Schaeffer discusses. Of course, since the book was written in 1999 (and I am reading it in 2017), there have been some changes since then, but it is still interesting.
I bought this book at a used book sale by our library. I was interesting in it because I knew that Charles Colson was a Christian author. (He is the former Nixon advisor who became a born-again Christian after going to jail and later developed a prison ministry.) Also, the title of the book, "How Now Shall We Live?," appears to be a reference to Francis Schaeffer's book, How Should We Then Live?, and I am a big fan of Francis Schaeffer.
My idea that this was a reference to Francis Schaeffer was confirmed when I saw that the book was dedicated to the memory of Francis Schaeffer. "We dedicate this book to the memory of Francis A. Schaeffer, whose ministry at L'Abri was instrumental in Nancy's conversion and whose works have had a profound influence on my own understanding of Christianity as a total worldview." "Nancy" appears to be a ghostwriter - the book is credited as written by Charles Colson in big letters and Nancy Pearcey in smaller letters.
The book is pretty easy to read. It is divided into short chapters so I read one or two each night before I went to bed. It is pretty good for this purpose.
Basically the book goes over some current issues as a sort of a continuation of some of the issues that Schaeffer discusses. Of course, since the book was written in 1999 (and I am reading it in 2017), there have been some changes since then, but it is still interesting.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 167 reviews