Book Club Questions for How Should We Then Live?

1.Schaeffer argues that the history of Western culture can be understood as the outworking of underlying philosophical and religious ideas. Before reading further, what assumptions did you bring to the question, 'How should we then live?' Did you think of it as primarily a personal or a cultural question?

2.Schaeffer draws a sharp distinction between two kinds of ultimate foundations for a civilization: the infinite, personal God of the Bible on one hand, and finite or impersonal 'gods' (including the god of autonomous human reason) on the other. Why does he argue this distinction is decisive for how a culture develops?

3.The title of the book comes from the prophet Ezekiel, who spoke to a people on the brink of cultural and spiritual collapse. What does Schaeffer suggest Ezekiel's situation has in common with our own? Do you find the parallel convincing?

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?

2.Schaeffer uses the concept of the 'nature-grace' split to describe the tension introduced in the medieval period: nature (including human reason) was given a degree of independence from grace (revelation). Why does he regard this separation as so dangerous? Do you agree?

3.The great Gothic cathedrals — soaring, light-filled, reaching heavenward — expressed a culture that still believed heaven and earth were connected. How does the architecture of an age reflect its deepest beliefs? What does the architecture of your own community reveal about what people value?

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?

2.He uses Renaissance art — particularly the contrast between Michelangelo's heroic, idealized figures and the biblical view of broken, redeemed humanity — to illustrate the shift in worldview. What does it tell us about a culture when its highest art glorifies the human form as essentially perfect and self-sufficient?

3.Schaeffer describes how Renaissance thinkers rediscovered classical Greek and Roman thought and used it to push back against the authority of the church and Scripture. Is the recovery of classical thought inherently dangerous, or does it depend on what role that thought is given? How does the Reformation handle this same classical heritage differently?

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?

2.Luther's stand at Worms — 'Here I stand; I can do no other' — is for Schaeffer not only a moment of personal courage but a philosophical declaration: there is objective truth, it can be known, and conscience must be bound to it. Why does Schaeffer regard this moment as so culturally significant beyond the church?

3.Schaeffer traces a direct line from Reformation theology to the development of modern science, democratic governance, and the concept of universal human rights. Does this connection seem plausible to you? What specific theological convictions would lead in those directions?

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?

2.Schaeffer draws a sharp contrast between the English and American revolutions (influenced by a more Reformation-shaped view of human nature and the need for checks on power) and the French Revolution (influenced by Enlightenment optimism about autonomous human reason). What were the practical differences between these revolutions, and why does Schaeffer regard this distinction as so important?

3.Voltaire and the French philosophes believed that once reason replaced religion, a utopia of tolerance and freedom would follow. What actually happened in the French Revolution, and what does Schaeffer conclude from it? Does history bear out his analysis?

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?

2.He traces the shift from a science that operated within a Christian framework (Copernicus, Galileo, Newton — who each saw their work as exploring God's creation) to a science that sought to explain all of reality without reference to God. What philosophical change drove this shift, and when did it begin to accelerate?

3.Darwin's theory of evolution is a flashpoint in Schaeffer's analysis — not primarily because of the biological claims themselves, but because of the philosophical conclusions that were drawn from it (that everything, including human consciousness and morality, can be explained by purely natural, material processes). Do you agree that there is a crucial difference between the scientific data and the philosophical worldview often attached to it?

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?

2.Kant argued that while we can know the phenomenal world (the world of appearances and sensory experience), we cannot know the noumenal world (ultimate reality, including God, freedom, and morality) through reason alone. How does this Kantian split contribute to the modern sense that religious faith and rational knowledge occupy completely separate realms?

3.Schaeffer argues that Hegel's attempt to resolve the tension by making contradiction itself the engine of all reality ('thesis-antithesis-synthesis') was a fateful move that ultimately dissolved the possibility of fixed truth and meaning. Whether or not you follow the philosophy, what are the real-world consequences of living in a world where there is no stable truth, only an endless process of contradictions?

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?

2.Picasso's cubism — breaking objects into disconnected, simultaneous perspectives — is read by Schaeffer as a visual expression of the collapse of a unified view of reality. Whether or not this reading is correct, what do you think art is meant to do? Should it reflect the brokenness of the world, point toward transcendence, or something else?

3.John Cage's '4′33″' — a piece in which a pianist sits at a piano and plays nothing for four minutes and thirty-three seconds — is for Schaeffer the logical conclusion of a certain philosophical trajectory: if there is no meaning, then even silence is as valid as any other music. How do you respond to this piece? Is Schaeffer's reading of it fair?

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?

2.Schaeffer argues that American democracy was built on the assumption that there is a law above the law — that even the government is accountable to a higher moral standard. What happens to limited government, checks and balances, and individual rights when that assumption disappears? Do you see evidence of this happening?

3.He warns about the possibility of an authoritarian takeover — not necessarily by a military junta, but by a technocratic or political elite that manipulates a population that has been softened by affluence and entertainment into trading freedom for security. Written in 1976, how prescient does this warning seem to you today?

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?

2.He is also critical of neo-orthodoxy (associated with Karl Barth) — which seemed to recover the language of Christian orthodoxy but placed religious truth in a realm of subjective encounter rather than propositional, historically grounded fact. What is the difference between a God who meets you in a felt experience and a God who has actually spoken and acted in history? Why does that difference matter?

3.Schaeffer argues that when the church adopts the 'nature-grace' split — treating Scripture as authoritative for spiritual matters but allowing secular fields (science, history, psychology) to operate as autonomous authorities — it has essentially surrendered its prophetic role. Do you see this pattern in any Christian communities you are familiar with?

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?

2.He argues that a society oriented around personal peace and affluence is uniquely vulnerable to authoritarian manipulation — because people who want above all to be comfortable will trade freedom for security when the choice is presented to them. Do you see evidence of this dynamic in contemporary political life?

3.Schaeffer is deeply concerned about the power of mass media — television in his day — to shape what people believe and value without their being aware of it. He warns that a powerful elite in media and government can manipulate a passive, entertainment-saturated population almost without resistance. How would you update his analysis for the age of social media and streaming content?

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?

2.He presents two possible futures for the West: (1) a turning back to the Christian worldview and its foundation; or (2) some form of authoritarian control filling the vacuum left by moral relativism. Schaeffer is honest that the first option requires a genuine spiritual revival, not just cultural conservatism. What is the difference between a Christian cultural revival and a merely conservative one?

3.Schaeffer calls Christians to what he terms 'co-belligerency' — the willingness to work alongside non-Christians on specific issues where there is common cause (defending human dignity, opposing injustice) without pretending that there is agreement on ultimate foundations. How does this principle navigate the tension between cultural engagement and theological integrity?

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?

2.Schaeffer's central thesis is that a society built on anything other than the infinite, personal God of the Bible will ultimately collapse into relativism, chaos, or authoritarian control. Having worked through the historical and philosophical evidence he presents, do you find this thesis convincing? What would you push back on, and what feels irrefutable?

3.Schaeffer traces the 'line of despair' across philosophy, art, science, law, and theology. In which of these domains do you see the descent below the line of despair most clearly in contemporary culture? What gives you the most concern, and why?