How Should We Then Live?

1.Schaeffer argues that the medieval period was simultaneously built on a Christian foundation and internally unstable. What does he identify as the primary source of that instability? In your own words, what was the problem with Aquinas's synthesis?

1.Schaeffer argues that Renaissance humanism was not simply a celebration of human dignity (which the Bible also affirms) but a declaration of human autonomy — the idea that humanity is the measure of all things. What is the crucial difference between those two positions?

1.Schaeffer argues that the Reformers did something far more radical than simply correct church abuses or debate doctrinal fine points — they recovered the idea that Scripture speaks with authority over all of life, not just personal piety. How does this 'total authority of Scripture' differ from the view of Scripture common in many churches today?

1.The Enlightenment thinkers saw themselves as liberating humanity from superstition and religious authority, using reason as the new foundation. What was right about their critique of abusive religious institutions? And what was fatally wrong about the solution they proposed?

1.Schaeffer argues that modern science was made possible by the Christian belief that the universe was created by a rational, orderly God who made it intelligible to human minds. How does this historical claim challenge the popular narrative that science and Christianity have always been in conflict?

1.Schaeffer describes what he calls the 'line of despair' — a threshold crossed in European philosophy (roughly in the late 19th century) below which thinkers gave up on the possibility of finding a unified, rational meaning for human existence. In your own words, what does it mean to be 'below the line of despair,' and what drove thinkers there?

1.Schaeffer argues that the fragmentation and chaos of much modern art is not arbitrary rebellion but an honest expression of a worldview: if there is no God, no objective meaning, and no rational unity to the universe, then art that is fragmented, chaotic, and meaningless is actually the most truthful art possible. Do you find this interpretation of modern art persuasive? How does it change the way you look at it?

1.Schaeffer describes a shift from 'natural law' (the idea that there is a moral order built into reality by God, which human laws should reflect) to 'sociological law' (the idea that laws are simply whatever society decides is useful or consensus-driven at any given moment). What are the practical consequences of this shift for how a society treats its most vulnerable members?

1.Schaeffer argues that theological liberalism (the movement beginning in the 19th century that sought to make Christianity compatible with Enlightenment rationalism and Darwinian science) represents the church capitulating to the spirit of the age rather than speaking prophetically to it. What is the essential compromise that theological liberalism makes, in Schaeffer's view?

1.Schaeffer coins the phrase 'personal peace and affluence' to describe the dominant values of the modern Western middle class: the desire for comfort, security, and prosperity in one's own private world, with minimal concern for broader society or future generations. How accurate is this description of the culture you live in — and of yourself?

1.Schaeffer warns of an emerging 'new elite' — technocrats, media figures, academics, and politicians — who, in the absence of shared transcendent values, will increasingly make decisions for the rest of society based on utilitarian or ideological criteria rather than any fixed moral standard. Does his warning seem more or less plausible today than when he wrote in 1976?

1.Looking back across all twelve chapters, which single chapter or idea had the most significant impact on how you see the world? What changed in your thinking, and why did that particular idea land so powerfully?