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?"