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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I just got done with the book last night, and I agree with a lot of what Bruce is saying. Schaeffer does come to some conclusions too abruptly. To me it seemed like if he agreed with an artist's theology, he thought that artist's work "succeeded"; if he disagreed then it immediately followed that that person's art had no value. I do think, though, that we can give those artists some credit and recognize that all art communicates a world view purposefully; that is why artists create: to express a world view by showing the world, or things in the world, as they see it, filtered through their world-view. And one of Schaeffer's main points is that even if the process is subconcious, every action that we perform and every thing we create as people will be completely influenced by our worldview. Or, as James says in the Bible "I will show you my faith by what I do".
I also found Schaeffer's vision of the future to be pretty eerily accurate. One thing that is certain in our post-9/11 nation is that the "elite" (government, businesses, medicine) are feeding off of our fear (think "Terror Alert: Orange"), and Americans are allowing this, because our sacred personal peace and affluence have been threatened in recent years.
To me, the strongest part of Schaeffer's book is the afterword, when he expresses why he felt the book was necessary. He's dead-on in his thought that Christians desperately need to stand for truth instead of making the mistakes of past Christians in letting humanist or existential thought become part of our faith. I agree with Schaeffer that we cannot seperate faith from reality, but I also believe that there are things about faith in God that are not "reasonable." I do believe in a God of miracles and healing and even personal revelation, and I don't think that Christians such as myself need to be afraid of admitting that while faith is not something we come up with to escape reality, we also cannot fully describe God in the area of reason - God does things that don't make sense all the time, not because He doesn't make sense, but because He is the creator and I can't "get" Him any more than this computer can grasp my existence right now. I can only be glad for those things God has told humanity about Himself, and the rest I do have to take on a faith that surpasses my finite mind. On points like this, I have to say I find C. S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" to be much clearer than Schaeffer's book.
One last tidbit: the passage in Ezekiel that he quotes is called the "watchmen" passage, and I think it is an interesting factoid that the Hebrew word for "watchmen" is "notzrim", which is the exact same word for "Christian" in Hebrew. This seems to be the prophetic duty of Christians, whether we like it or not...
Come on, Bruce. You can name me, even if you don't represent my viewpoint accurately.
I would draw a distinction between "worshiping at the altar of an academic elite" and "wanting the most talented and capable to be in charge of tasks for which they are best suited." I didn't support Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court because I felt there were better and more qualified people. Not only had she never served as a judge or justice, she went to a law school I could have gotten into. If she had at least been an Ivy League law student, we would have had some basis for the belief that she was at least smart enough to get into an Ivy League law school. Would that alone have made her a qualified candidate? No. But at least it would be something. Supreme Court justice is a position where academic credibility/ability is something to be valued. Memorization, issue spotting, writing ability are all things that can be measured academically, and those are the primary aspects of the job. Does this always disqualify a state school candidate? No. I can think of one guy we graduated with, in whose hands I would feel comfortable leaving the interpretation of my nation's laws. But I would want him to do more than be in charge of a state lottery before he got the big promotion.
On the other hand, the executive need not be an academic, b/c the nature of the job is quite different. Ronald Reagan was a great president for a number of reasons, but that doesn't mean I would have wanted him on the Supreme Court. I was a big fan of Renquist, but I don't think he would have made a good president. Nixon was an academic also. Maybe he would have been better suited for the Court.
But that whole Miers episode should be something in which you can take heart. It was a lack of apathy on the part of conservatives that forced the executive to deliver to the Court a candidate who was less unknown. And far more qualified.
Blindly worshipping the academic elite would be buying into "global warming." After extensive internet research, I am convinced its all part of a Bilderberg plot to take over the world.
Post a Comment