The author finishes this book with an inspiring assertion: “We are called to revolt against false idols and the power they exert over the minds and hearts. Christians should be on the front lines fighting to liberate society from its captivity to secular worldviews” (p278). This comes after a quote from Francis Schaeffer, “One of the greatest injustices we do to our young people is to ask them to be conservative. Christianity is not conservative, but revolutionary”--against the status quo. Pearcey argues the way to do this is through the artists (as prophets) in the church, who like Bach, could inspire a spiritual revival and spark a global revolution. I am unsure this author’s methodology in this book would achieve that level of inspiration.
This book needed to be written. There is so much good information laid out in fair historical patterns. The information is catalogued in very helpful and meaningful ways. In doing my research project there were several times I wondered if anyone had linked our country’s spiritual awakenings with the philosophical and art forms of the day as well. This book would be a good resource for that.
But two objections—a troublesome generalization pattern and oversimplifications that seemed to be as reductionistic and therefore hypocritical as the author sought to be anti-reductionistic. Can we really reduce ALL thinking to upper and lower levels? I also thought that her definitions of terms like postmodernism were not treated with the depth they deserved and therefore oversimplified.
The second thing I mused was that most of the information that seemed to be laid out as the author’s argument was filled with fluff—there didn’t seem to be a lot of deductions being made from the postulations she was making. Sure the connections made between a country’s philosophy and its expressions found in art are perhaps worthwhile, but again, there was something missing. Perhaps it was the connections she postulated herself—that she believed these philosophies were expressed in art forms in this way or that, but you have to ask, “Is this really what the author/artist was really thinking?” or is it just Pearcey’s take on it? And I definitely don’t believe she did justice to the way modern thinking has taken a toll on today’s theology—perhaps she was just exempting herself (as a modern) from her own pages in this way? Can she really assert that she or anyone has a “fully biblical worldview” (p245)?
One of the titles given to the current generation today has been the “entitlement generation”. After reading this book I would expound that to mean the “exemption generation”. Pearcey again and again speaks about how the thinking of the most popular philosophies in the academic world, its influx into the political realm, and entertainment media—it is no wonder that today’s youth are habitually “exempt” in their thinking from the very things they disavow against others.
I thought chapter nine and the epilogue could be pulled out an expanded into its own book—these two chapters actually made me sit up and say, “Wow, here is something more engaging!” I would like to read what Pearcey would consider as a “more comprehensive” rendering of her principles applied to “strategies for discerning worldviews in movies” (p265).