Book Selection #3

I've spent countless days and many a sleepless night thinking about what book to select for the Society of Letters. My indecisiveness over what to choose left me with a neglected wife, an angst-ridden toddler, and the sort of absent-mindedness that results in a drowned sport wagon.
Then, one day, I knew exactly what I had to do. I know we all think we hear voices from time to time, but this voice was real. It said, "Thank you for calling Harris Bank customer service. How can I help you?" "India!" I shouted. "I don't know anything about India!"
A recent study said that as an American I'm culturally predisposed to dismiss the legitimacy of other cultures. Well you Mr. Soros-funded academic, you underestimate both the patriotism and sensitivity of the Society of Letters. Join me my literate friends as we explore the diversity of the subcontinent that has given us so much more than spicy food, yoga classes, and 30 minute long phone conversations. They're always asking if "there's anything else I can do for you?" I say it's time we ask if there's anything else we can do for them!

Pankaj Mishra, Temptations of the West: How to Be Modern in India, Pakistan, Tibet, and Beyond, 323 pp.

A proposed schedule

The first round-table turned out to be really enjoyable and interesting. Bruce did a great job guiding the discussion, and I enjoyed getting to hear everyone's thoughts on the Schaeffer book. Now we can take up the second book. I was thinking that we could take next week to read the novel, or finish reading it, or wait on others to finish, as the case may be. (Sorry Bruce, some of us aren't as fast as you.) We could start posting at the end of next week and into the first part of the week after, and plan on meeting maybe on Wednesday the First or Thursday the Second, if that is agreeable. If that seems too slow, we could move it up; it just depends on the consensus.

So, go tie some string on so you remember to read. And if your potato falls on the floor, don't eat it.

I gave up my lunch hour and all I got was this post and a seven layer burrito at taco bell

If I were still in college I'd beg for an extension.

The selective history of the first several chapters of Schaeffer's book made it difficult for me to concentrate on the conclusions Schaeffer was trying to support. For a while I stopped every few paragraphs to shake my head at a particularly galling omission or unsupported conclusion.

Eventually I tried to separate Schaeffer's conclusions from the evidence he used to support his conclusions. Then I just quit thinking about whether or not the evidence he gave actually supported his conclusions. Then I quit thinking about the evidence altogether. That made things better.

Dusty's piano analogy is a good summary of the argument I felt like Schaeffer was trying to make. The argument is easy to attack, but I feel it still has some value. After I finished being angry about Schaeffer's work I started to think about my response -- and that was the valuable thing about the book for me. Reading Schaeffer pushed me to think about how I would outline history, and it forced me to examine the "base upon which society is built". For that I am grateful.

I'd love to go into more detail about the specifics of Schaeffer's book, but my lunch hour is almost up -- I'll save it for tonight.

maybe i should change my name from maddawg'r to the alumnus?

as i sit here on my unemployed couch tuesday morning, i realize that some used book sellers on the barnes and noble website can be crooks. i wonder what schaeffer would have to say about that? of course, i dont really know, because the wankers who sold me my $4.00 book off of the website, sent me the study guide to the film series - and not the actual book that i ordered. i figured that by the time i got that all straightened out, we would be on to the next book. so, being the laid back hippie (what up dusty) that i am, i thought id just wait and get going on this second everything is illuminated book. please dont stone me.

on that note, isnt it interesting that both of the books so far kind of deal with illumination. hmmmm.....

i dont really know the parameters/deadlines for this second book (for obvious electronic mail reasons). is it being read yet? when is the tenative date to plan on being finished with it? and most importantly, rick, when are we going to have the cookout at your place?

well, back to layin around in my shorts.

later.

A pig without wings can't fly

I'm not here to flex my mental muscles, dazzle you with a fireworks display of words, create an analogy or display obscene sacreligious photos. I'm not here to insert words from a language I've hardly mastered, but in my opinion Schaeffer is a бздёнок.

As a prophet he joins the ranks of the best and the worst. Yawn.

No one commented on his attempt to Christianize science, so I will. Maybe "modern" and "modern modern" (what an uncreative idiot) science was built by Christian hands, it doesn't really matter, because regardless that foundation, that bedrock was most certainly paid for by the Church, and for the most part not a prostestant church, but those Mary lovers. Schaeffer spends most of the book bashing this three-fourths of the Christian world, then praises the knowledge that their money was able to buy. If you doubt me, the first telescope, the eye to the cosmos was paid for by the Pope, and probably sprinkled with holy water, maybe even asked to lead a round of prayers to the Virgin/not really a virgin anymore.

I'm not going to give you a gallimaufry synopsis of the rest of the book. Honestly, I was completely indifferent to it all. The General would salute me and say, "That's my boy."

Ah come on, procrastination smashtination...

Okay friends, time to blog. I know, you're thinking, "he's taking it, to the limit, one more time." (repeat this song line 40 times)... But it has reached the moment for me to finally post. I have always gone back and forth with whether or not I am a procrastinator. I have found that most of my creativity really kicks in when I’m coming down to the wire... Or as some like to think of it as a runner who is saving a little bit of energy for the end, and when he hits the home stretch, gives his last kick to burst to the end...

Since I, like Rick, used to also be a History Professor, a lot of our points will probably be the same... okay, okay, so I’m really just now going back to finish my undergrad.

I need to inform you all of something. When I went up to Tulsa a few weeks ago to visit my in-laws, I told them about the book club and what we were reading first. I then proceeded to tell them that I was attempting to track down a copy of H.S.W.T.L. by Schaffer, and not only did they have a copy I could borrow, but also a red, hard-back folder containing a study guide, two VHS tapes of Schaeffer explaining the first part of the book, and an incomplete set of audio cassette tapes! Hahaa- If you knew my in-laws this would not surprise you (ask Huskerson)- Their house is mainly made up of books. They are incredibly well read! Now, don't get the impression that they are "Schafferians" or something, but we did have a great convo this last weekend on the pros and cons of the book.

Now, I tend to be the guy who goes for the underdog. I think so far Schaffer has been somewhat "thrashed" for lack of a better word. I will start by saying that my blog is two part. First, my impression of the book, and second, the book's impression on me.

Being the non-history buff that I am, and the fact that most of the time I just nod my head in "agreeance" (as Rick quoted the Durst-e-nator, which by the way, his remix of "Faith" might make the updated version of "How Shall We Then Live - 2007") while listening to others talk about history in all its forms, I really do enjoy learning about all eras of history. So for me, the beginning of the book was really enjoyable. Going into it, I figured that Schaffer wasn't attempting to re-write history, and by interjecting some sort of apologetics, to prove that everything can be simplified down to a 250 page book. I will get back to why I liked the beginning...

Now, whereas I don't know enough about art to say that Schaffer was wrong, I do agree with everyone so far that some/most of his points did seem fairly "convenient" or "coincidental" as support to his statements, to say the least. My actual thought was, "Crap, if that's really what Michelangelo or any of the other artists were thinking, then this is just getting crazy!" However, I do think that Schaffer stressed that his point was not to show how great of an art historian he was, but that artists painted either consciously or sub-consciously through their world view. I was pretty skeptical as I continued to read, but I knew that since I haven't really studied much Roman history (actually none at all) that I would have no base to compare the truths and misconceptions of Schaffer. I did think that he hit the "meat" of his argument from the Enlightenment forward. This is where he really did wade through a LOT of different philosophies and you can tell that he has more knowledge in this area compared to the arts. Actually, I felt like you could break down each chapter into a separate discussion, and it is a little overwhelming to try to sum up Schaffer summing up Western history.

The book's impression on me. Whereas I don't think we should replace all text books with Schaffer's work, I do however think his point is not only valid, but urgent. I'm sure that there have been countless books written about "world views" and those who have tried to argue which one is right and which is wrong. However, I don't think many have taken on the uphill battle of showing the consistency of the World View's effects and effected throughout the course of history. I walked away with the realization that I need to step back and look at the bigger picture. That man, from the time the world began, has been trying to figure and be figured out. I think that is why I was intrigued with the beginning of the book. Whether historically accurate or not, the point being, that we as a thinking and worshiping people have come almost full circle: We are back to Rome.

Art, music, philosophy, and history itself are what make the present real. I guess I can't help but walk away with the conviction of how long I have simply accepted things as they were, and how wrapped up I am at times in seeking my own personal peace and affluence. Jesus always seemed to confront these things by presenting a way that seemed upside down to everyone and everything at the time. “What should profit a man if he gains the whole world and yet loses his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” Matthew 16:25. By the end, it wasn’t that I obtained an answer to “How Shall We Then Live?” Rather, all I could hear was the overarching question, "Why, what, and how, do I believe, do, and live?"

(Insert witty/cynical title here)

In reading this book, i must say that i was able to experience the full spectrum of both completely agreeing with Schaeffer and also at the same time thinking he was a total idiot. First of all, i think the concept of this book as far as juxtaposing art and the philosophical/religious outlooks of these civilizations was fairly predictable yet at the same time quite convincing. I personally felt that the first few chapters seemed like they were a little rushed in cramming in such a rich time both artistically and socially. i think this may be partly due to the fact that i am not an expert on the reformation, enlightenment or the renaissance.

I still feel like he didn't really lay a solid foundation concerning the arts and i can see how "worldview" will definitely effect art but i think that some of his other arguments weaken this viewpoint. follow me here...Schaeffer makes a pretty major point of stating that there are things that are naturally right and wrong based upon precepts given to us by God. He also states that God has not created us as machines and that we are all completely individuals. So by that same rational, isn't it possible that the whole idea of art and freedom in art was given to us by God to more fully understand his nature. Schaeffer talks about how Bach would write music that would contain very strange portions but that there was always a resolution and that this reflected the worldview of the time which was strongly Christian. I believe that Schaeffer writes off the shear nature of God (who he has claimed to be creator and artist of this world) by stating that the predictability of music as a reference to our understanding of God is a good thing. I personally feel that this music that doesn't follow a pattern is just as strong of a metaphor for God who is the ultimate artist.

Secondly, i feel that the strength of his arguments could be bulked up by looking perhaps at the arts in societies that aren't Christian based societies, yet operate on the same basic set of moral principles.

I also wanted to state that i feel like this book was strongly influenced by the Cold War.

Time to sleep now.

A Table Without Chairs

"You can't sell leaf-tables and no chairs. Chairs, you got a dinette set. No chairs, you got @#%^!" - Nathan Arizona

"Arrogant bastard!," "Glib!," "Arbitrary!," and "Hubris!" are labels I audibly threw at Francis Schaeffer while reading How Should We Then Live? To be fair, there were also times I thought "there's definitely some truth to that...you arrogant bastard." A credit to his career as a theologian and an intellectual seeker, Schaeffer has produced a very thought provoking, if at times not always thoughtful, thinkpiece that has kept me up at night in ways that seedy internet chat rooms and youtube clips of "Bas Rutten's Lethal Street Defense System" never could.

In my opinion, and I suspect the opinion of many others not named Chuck Colson, Schaeffer's work is going to accomplish little outside of either reinforcing a faith-centered declensionist view of Western history or making someone like myself fear the generations of home schooled children who's parents will teach the ideas in this book as actual history.
There have been several of discussions in the office over the accuracy and overall importance of Schaeffer's history-based methodology, anecdotes, criticisms, and observations (impressively, all of this discussion was done most efficiently during 15 minute breaks and the occasional lunch). And for the most part there has been a goodwill gesture (myself included) to let him off the hook because he's not writing a history book, he's writing a work of cultural criticism. Try as I might, I can't let him off the hook. If anyone sees a bus around please let me know so I can toss his carefully self-fashioned-bourgeois-fake-monk-bearded @#%^ beneath its front wheels. Sorry, that was harsh. I'm going to blame Dusty for encouraging a free-associational method of blogging.

On History, Presentism, Memory, and long German words: First, Scheaffer's declensionist narrative (tracing the disappearance of his "freedom without chaos" base) is only serving a means to a premeditated end. This is a blatant example of presentist history or just plain bias - Tom pointed out the same when he commented on Schaeffer's "Christian triumphalism," which is funny since given the pessimistic view of the present and the future, I kept wondering if Schaeffer died an optimistic man. It's unfair to confront his book strictly on the grounds of its history. I realize Schaeffer isn't a historian, but that doesn't excuse him from misrepresenting the past to reach his presentist conclusions. I have to justify years and years of college, so please bear with me as I point out a few of my favorite "Schaefferisms":

• As Dusty already said, there is no Thirty Years War in Schaeffer's Reformation. This is a bit like leaving World War II out of World War II. Furthermore, how about we just leave Germany out of the narrative of Reformation-based nations all together. Why? Because a discussion of Germany would force Schaeffer to view politics as paramount to the center of Luther's Reformation and not at the periphery as he does in daying England's reformation "began" as a political movement (e.g., no mention of the German territorial princes in the Reformation). He correctly says that England's Protestant base began as a political movement, he just doesn't bother to say that Luther's call for Papal reform became the Protestant reformation largely because of local and regional politics.
• The "Glorious Revolution" or the English Revolution of 1688 will only be referred to as the "Bloodless Revolution" when setting up a discussion of the bloodier French Revolution. Of course, the "Bloodless Revolution" and the securing of Parliament's authority would have been impossible had Parliament not beheaded a king 40 years earlier - and you might ask the Irish about that whole "bloodless" part. I'm not saying the French Revolution wasn't a political, social, and intellectual mess, it most certainly was. But, if you're keeping score on the beheading of divine-right kings, that's Reformation-based England: 1; Renaissance-based France: 1.
• Legislative bodies and revolutionary success: Apart from the ideological and philosophical difference that doomed France and Russia (the Reformation vs. Renaissance base), Schaeffer should also point out that the legislative responsibilities of the Estates General and Duma on the eve of their respective revolutions left them much more unable and unqualified to organize and direct a government than either the various legislative bodies in the American colonies or Parliament. A sudden transition to a legislature can be difficult, just ask Ira.....oh, let's not go there.
• Name drop as many social theorists as you can, dismiss their ideas and intellectual contributions, and last, don't discuss these ideas. Schaeffer throws out Freud's ideas of determinism as resting "upon a child's relationship to his mother" but never bothers to quote his influential work Society and its Discontents, a work that has much to say about the downward spiral of modern societies and very little to say about mothers. He mentions the "neo-Marxist" Frankfurt School, but lumps Marcuse, Adorno, Horkhheimer, and Jurgen Habermas together with complete disregard for the fundamental differences between their works and how they fit into the New Left. Poor Albert Einstein is reduced to his cliched quote "I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos."

A second problem exists in his idea of a Christian consensus. Schaeffer laments the slowly disappearing "memory of the Christian consensus which gave us freedom within the biblical form." With this part I am in complete Fred Durst-like "agreeance" with Schaeffer: the Christian consensus is exactly what he says it is , a "memory." But this memory is a construction of the author's subjectivity as opposed to being any specific historical moment he can pull out of an archive, a contemporary memoir, or a textbook of "Western" thought and culture. This inability to point back to any specific example creates a narrative that inconsistently jumps from cultural history to political history to intellectual history looking for examples to support his teleological progression. I think this is the reason why his numerous art history lessons fail to advance his argument - the reader is never entirely sure what to do with them because they are largely presented without any real supportive context. Maybe I missed where he found this consensus? Would be more than happy to think about it if someone knows where it is.

Finally at the end we get prophecy, er predictions, um warnings. Most of these are vague descriptions that, given the rhythms of history, will happen somewhere at some time. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if you go back over the last 500 years you can probably find scenarios like the ones Schaeffer presents existing outside the realm of our current era of cultural depsair. I will say though that with these predictions Schaeffer demonstrates a real understanding of history and its cycles. Enough at least to scare the gay marriage out of people. That was a joke. It's a blog for God's sake.

So at the end the reader is left with 250+ pages of sketchy history, a glorified past, a pessimistic present, and a potentially pessimistic future that can only be undone if a certain group of people realize that society needs to unmask itself from the values that are rapidly eroding personal, civic, and cultural decency. Sounds like Marx to me. Which makes sense given that what Schaeffer is ultimately doing is writing a book that is most similar to philosophical works like those of Marx's Capital or Weber's The Protestant Ethic, in which history is simply a comparative means of advancing a specific "world view." The reader is invited to think, dissect, and decide which Weltanschauung is correct or most persuasive. So in some way, maybe we can forgive him for his shotty history because he's just doing what the other theorists do (note, you'd never know it from the book, but there are lady theorists out there). That being the case, his world view failed to be any more substative, any more realistic, and any more attainable than any of the modern theorists and philosophers he half-heartedly confronted.

A few questions/things to ponder:

1. How much credit should we give to the Cold War for shaping Schaeffer's view of the future/past?

2. Why doesn't Schaeffer discuss Islam? If you're looking for absolutes, monotheism, and god-centered people I'd think you might want to consider them. Not to mention that in its structure at least, Islam is more democratic than Christianity. (Note, I am not saying that Islamic society is more democratic! There's a profound difference between what a religious book says and how that religion is carried out in relation to societal norms.)

Update: A couple of pictures

Reading Schaeffer, I thought of these two things. I'll explain later.

Update and Explanation:

I thought I would put these photos up so people could have a little while to contemplate them. The pictures are of 1) a Medieval Crucifix I saw at one of the big Chicago Museums, and 2) Ghandi (or, as Rick dubbed them, "Jesus with the _____ ____, and Ben Kingsley). Their relevance is as counterexamples to some of Schaeffer's assertions.

The first is only of peripheral importance, but I thought it was amusing. If you've looked at the crucifix, you might have noticed that the artist painted Jesus' abs in a, shall we say, interesting configuration. This crucifix was one of about 6 or 8, by different artists (iirc), hanging in a row, all similarly configured. Schaeffer, in one of the early chapters, denigrates Roman/Greek art as dedicated to the cult of the phallus. I would just say that the cult seems to have survived within the Christian milieu.

The second, and much more important point has to do with Schaeffer's arguments about democracy. The Ghandi photo is just to show that there are other philosophies and religions that value peace. Schaeffer argued that the American Revolution and the British "Bloodless Revolution" were successful due to the presence of Bible-based Christian values (as opposed to the French and Russian revolutions which turned into blood baths). He also argued that Christianity is a necessary prerequisite to democracy. Ghandi and India certainly cast doubt on those propositions. Ghandi is revered as a peaceful revolutionary. And India is the most populous democracy in the world. In fact, of all the people that have ever lived in a democracy, nearly half of them live or lived in India.

Just off target

I think Schaeffer's art history lesson really didn't serve the purpose of this book. So any and all criticism of him in that regard seems fair. I also objected to his selective use of history to bolster his arguments for Reformation thinking. There was a reason he avoided talking about the religious wars in Europe in this era (I'll get to that in a second).

I agree with Tom's take on Schaeffer as a Christian Triumphalist to some extent. However, the book reads like it was written for a Christian audience. In addition, I think the point Schaeffer was making was a Christian point, because that was the historic context from which he drew, keeping in mind that this book is centered on "Western Thought and Culture," exclusively. The heart of Schaeffer's message is the importance of absolutes in defining the way people think. He hits that point pretty hard at the very beginning of the book. Drawing on a strictly Western viewpoint, the primary model for an "absolute" way of thinking is a Judeo-Christian model. I think illustrating Christianity's stand-alone position in this regard is point of the first 3/5ths of the book. Unfortunately, this argument is both too drawn out and too brief at the same time.

But back to his point, I created an analogy to make sense of what he was saying. Starting with the parallel histories Schaeffer gives us, one a Reformation History, and the other a Renaissance history, imagine the following scenario. Each of the two groups approach a piano for the first time. Sitting atop the piano is a "how to" book on playing the piano. The Reformation group holds high the book as the absolute authority on how to play. They learn to do what the book says, they succeed at it, and following the principles set out in the book, the group pioneers advances in playing guitar and tambourine. Faith in the book gives what they do meaning and purpose. The Renaissance group disregards the book's position of authority. They are self-taught. Without a structure, they value abstraction. While the Reformation group finds meaning in the belief that they are playing "music", the Renaissance group, because it never submits to the book, bangs around on the keys creating what it can, but eventually despairs at the lack of definition. One can imagine the Renaissance group saying, "what is music? does it exist? how can I know that what I have crafted is music?" And maybe the Renaissance group eventually starts taking LSD. At some point, without the definition provided by the book, the Renaissance groups creates rules and order on its own. Perhaps the biggest guy in the group decides what music is, and what it isn't. It all seems, in the end, arbitrary.

Painted in this light, just submitting to the book sounds like a better plan. This is how Schaeffer paints Christianity, at least in my view.

Now on to selective history: Go back to my above scenario. Imagine the Reformation group has disputes on how to interpret the book. Imagine they fight a bloody war over it, for thirty years, that nearly tears the continent of Europe apart. Imagine that at the end of the day, at the end of all this fighting, you still have to trust that somebody interpreted correctly, if that is even possible or knowable. Maybe there are 200 different Reformation camps, each claiming to be the authority on how to play. Are you any better off than the desperate existentialist? Or the California Hippie? Is society better off? I think Schaeffer would say yes, and he might pass off the 30 years War (1618-1648) as a by-product of some other line of thought, but by pointing the finger at the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution as the result of non-Reformationist thinking, while simultaneously not owning all of the problems and consequences of the Reformation, he comes across as disingenuous.

So I guess my primary critique was that his argument was incomplete.

My thoughts on Schaeffer (or a few of them, anyway)

I finished reading the Schaeffer book last week, and found it to be very interesting. I appreciate the book because it made me think about the important questions of meaning and purpose in life. As a Jew, I have a different theological perspective (I’m guessing) from most of you, and I will admit up front that I disagreed with most of Schaeffer’s premises and conclusions. I also found his arguments to be unconvincing. Overall, the book seemed to be very conclusory, with lots of assertions and few arguments. My main impression was that this was a work of Christian Triumphalism rather than serious scholarship. There was a lot in the book that I felt it would be interesting to discuss, but I will start out with a few comments and the one main question I had after finishing.

First, the comments:

• As Bruce and Bryan said already, I found Schaeffer’s treatment of art to be somewhat off the mark. I’m not sure how the ability to paint a subject so that his feet appear to be touching the ground makes one a more Christian artist. Also, it seems odd that at the beginning of the book, Schaeffer criticizes the early medieval artists for painting mere symbols instead of painting realistically, and then later in the book criticizes recent artists who have a realist style for being too realistic and failing to try to paint the invisible.
• I find Schaeffer’s claim that Christianity was a necessary precondition for the invention of science to be unconvincing. He acknowledges that other civilizations did some science (Islamic science or Chinese science) but says they gave up on it because they weren’t Christian. As much as Schaeffer talks about cause and effect in the book, I think he has confused them with coincidence in this case. He never makes any argument to this effect, merely the bald assertion. And anyway, the keystone of modern science is the scientific method which is well known to be an Islamic development.
• I was floored by Schaeffer’s assertion that existentialist philosophy is responsible for it being unsafe to walk the streets in the cities these days. As far as I know, most crime is due to poverty and drug use. I doubt poverty has much correlation with being Christian; and drug use – or most drug use, I should say, or maybe at least a lot of drug use – is due to poverty as well as the wide availability of cheap drugs. One could try and argue that the lack of the Christian base is responsible in some indirect way for violent crime, but I just don’t think Schaeffer came close to making that argument. I suppose one could argue that if you are a person with the Christian base, you wouldn’t do criminal things like that; but I don’t think that Christianity, alone, is enough to outweigh, in every case, the ugly effects of long-term poverty and hopelessness.
• Also, Schaeffer at one point mentions the “genuine” part of the “hippy movement”. That begs the question of what is the non-genuine part of the hippy movement, and what’s the difference, and why does it matter?

And second, my main question:

• Schaeffer talks a lot about how Christianity, or I should say Bible based Christianity, made the development of freedom and democracy possible. He also, at other points, talks about those who have the Christian base and those who believe (mistakenly believe, I think Schaeffer would say) that they have complete autonomy. My question is, what does Schaeffer believe Freedom, Autonomy and Free-Will are? He has a very negative view of those who believe man has full autonomy. How is full autonomy different from free-will? Schaeffer talks about “freedom” a lot, but I’m not sure I know exactly what he means. In a democratic society which Schaeffer believes is dependant on the Biblical Christian base, would Schaeffer be prepared to let others have the freedom to make choices that are incompatible with Bible-based Christian doctrine?

I hope my comments and questions made some sense; they are somewhat off the cuff. I’m interested to hear what others have to say.

First Out of the Gate - Schaeffer

Since I picked the book, I think it only fair that I probably post the first discussion about it. Let me start off by saying that you shouldn't really post or comment unless you have finished reading the book; it is only fair to those of us who have put in the time to finish. Remember part of the benefits of this sort of club is that it makes you read.

Even though I am scarcely qualified to judge Schaeffer's recount of European history (but I am sure there will be some of you who are), Schaeffer's analysis of everything prior to existentialism seemed abrupt. For all I know he could be spot on with his analysis of the reformation, renaissance, etc., but it just seemed he came to a conclusion before the information called for it. As a matter of fact, the book wasn't a very good read until he got to the enlightenment, and I think that is fair because that is what he rails against most.

Also his critique and analysis of art seemed unrealistic. Probably because I don't understand art. However, it seems a bit of a stretch to think that most of these artist put that much thought into their paintings. The artists and different styles he uses to illustrate societal paradigms (I love Kuhn, too!) fit nicely with his analysis, but it seems like this could be possible with anything, such as the Miracle on Ice is what caused the Reagan Revolution.

His predictions about the future are uncannily accurate (remember he wrote this in the 70's), but what most intrigues me are some of his main points (you'll have to pardon the upcoming paraphrasing):

1. reason and non-reason:
a. I really see his reasoning here exact as it relates to the modern church. Isn't it interesting that the really successful churches (the megas) today are either a self-help seminar using the Bible as a 12 steps program(narcissistic reason) or supernatural on cue, basing its relationship with God on charisma or some other supernatural experience with the Holy Spirit(narcissitic non-reason).
b. Modern church has almost entirely become an inward-focus experience. We go so we can overcome vice, be better parents, experience emotion, or get some sort of special revelation. I think this falls in line with Schaeffer's explanation of focusing on the particulars (even though he doesn't literally predict this within the modern church, I think it is a logical flow from his thinking on the particulars.)


2. A society without absolutes will:
a. Become hedonistic: presently this needs no further words, it has become almost an absolute in itself; or
b. Be ruled by the tyranny of the majority, or
c. Be ruled by a dictatorship of one or some.
This is the really scary one because I think we are headed (not in my lifetime) to some sort of dictatorship. I think there are some (whose names I will not mention) who worship at the altar of an academic elitism, believing that those who excel in the academic realm are the only ones who should hold government leadership positions, so they can look out for and know what is best for the rest of us who just don't understand.
If you think this isn't possible then tell me the last U.S. President not connected to an Ivy League school; or name the only SC Justice not from Harvard, Stanford, or Yale. The polarity and partisanship in present national politics is not going to go away by electing a uniter as president, because the partisanship is really nothing more than the primary to elect which academic elitists will soon rule over every aspect of our lives, (or as Schaeffer would say, "be those who give us our arbitrary absolutes by which to live by.") Will it be the blue-blood Republican hedonists, or the equally hedonistic Democratic socialists? The religious right and the populist left are mere pawns being used by these opponents to further their cause and will be discarded once their usefulness has been depleted.

Anyway, that is enough for now. I would appreciate any pro or con comments.