Schaeffer is able to discuss many different topics because of the large time range he covers in the book (Roman days until present times). My favorite issues addressed included: --The concept of charity, in which Schaeffer talks about how the older churches were very compassionate with wealth, but since the Industrial Revolution, many Christians have forgotten this and focused on personal accumulated wealth. --Open vs. closed systems --Evolution and in turn the purpose and meaning of life --La Boheme, which I found very interesting because of the recent movie "Moulin Rouge." This popular opera by Puccini presented the fundamental concepts of Rousseau -- autonomous freedom leads the hero to fight all of society's standards, values, and restraints. --Origin of life (i.e. "In the beginning..."), including the idea of pantheism. --And perhaps my favorite came on the topic of existentialism. Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, "Oh man! Take heed of what the dark midnight says: I slept, I slept -- from deep dreams I awoke: The world is deep -- and more profound than day would have thought. Profound in her pain -- Pleasure -- more profound than pain of heart, Woe speaks; pass on. But all pleasure seeks eternity -- a deep and profound eternity."
Yes, it is the idea that we all seek the pleasure of eternity. Nietzsche said that God is dead, and thus he believed man is dead. It's not surprising that Nietzsche went insane! Without God, what are you left with? Nietzsche said that you are left with "systems." In today's world we might call them "game plans." Schaeffer probably can summarize the implications a lot better than I can:
"A person can erect some sort of structure, some type of limited frame, in which he lives, shutting himself up in that frame and not looking beyond it. The game plan can be one of a number of things. It can be filling your life with material possessions. Or it can be a scientist concentrating on some small point of science so that he does not have to think of any of the big questions, such as why things exist at all. It can be a skier concentrating for years on knocking one-tenth of a second from a downhill run."
The final chapter of the book answers the question of "How Should We Then Live?" and although Schaeffer's suggestions are not that specific, he does get to the very heart of living, culture, and our world's future.
On a personal level -- and there is always a personal level, one of the ideas in the book -- I have had many opportunities to examine the presuppositions of my education, upbringing, and culture in the light of those ideas. In 30 years, I have found those ideas to be challenging and illuminating. I can say from personal experience that in no way does Schaeffer offer glib answers. Also, there is nothing intellectually cheap about his analysis. The cultural analysis framework in HSWTL has continued to be helpful through a career in Information Systems and Enterprise Architecture. I find that framework still helps me see the "really big picture" facing companies in the 21st century (which, it turns out, includes deep moral issues).
One of Schaeffer's notable ideas is that truth should not only be self-consistent but practical/livable. Based on my experience, "How Should We Then Live?" is a credible analysis of the history of ideas.
PS: Perhaps the reader might wonder I did not end by saying the book contains a "powerful prescription" or "an excellent social roadmap," etc, as if Schaeffer had an agenda he wants all of us to follow, lock-step. He is unapologetic about being a Christian and pointing to the person of Christ (of the Bible) for credible answers to modern dilemmas. If that makes readers uncomfortable.... Well, that is his purpose--to make us (the modern Church) uncomfortable.
The problem is that he presents a distorted view of the Reformation and thus makes a faulty case for the cure as a return to "Reformation Christianity." How does he do this? Well for starters he flat-out ignores the fact that Sola Scriptura is almost a guarantee of the religious relativism he strenuously condemns (how can it not, any possible interpretation can be thrust upon a text without an authoritive interpretation). He strangely claims that the Reformation lead to Democracy, which, considering that every nation that sided with the Reformers did so out of greed and desire for absolute power is strange to say the least. One of the negative aspects of the Reformation that he does address is that everywhere the Reformation took hold edured destruction of art and wholesale looting of monestaries on a massive scale. He tries to answer this charge by saying that the destruction pertained, for the most part, only to people who owned the art and images themselves. While it might be true for some of the cases, it makes no sense to apply this to the numerous cases of destruction and looting of monestaries, churches and church lands (along with numerous instances of martyrdom among the clergy in those lands).
While I would wholely recommend the book to anyone who wants to know how are culture descended into relativism. However the author's biases color his view of history to a degree that it might make him uncredible in the eyes of more historically oriented observers.
However, one must pay close attention to Schaeffer's opening and closing point: persons operate based on presuppostitions about what is true, sometimes without knowing it. Schaeffer is not immune. While excellent in some respects, the book is trapped in a Cold War mentality. Further, several of Schaeffer's views on art seem quite arbitrary since he never defends them. For instance, throughout the book, Schaeffer is categorically against non-realistic art, but he never defends his position that realistic art is inherently good.
In the final analysis, HSWTL provides a thought-provoking analysis of western thought. However, it should not be taken as the final word on the subject. I believe Schaeffer himself would agree that no 258 page book on the subject could ever really cover the complexities therein. As a starting point, it works. As a final statement, it is woefully inadequate.
