How Now Shall We Live?
Ratings4
Average rating3.5
A rather laborious read that I had to slog my way through. This is a long book; my copy clocked in at 491 pages, excluding the appendices with various notes and extra content. That's not to say that a long book is a bad thing, but it feels like it was avoidable for this title. By the end, I had the distinct impression that Colson liked the sound of his own voice (or rather, indulges in his own prose). I don't know if that's completely fair for me to say, but this book was just dry for the most part. Much of what he had to say surely could have been condensed and edited.
There are a handful of excellent chapters that recount stories from various people to show how the arguments of the book play out in the lives of real people. These were by far my favorite parts, and I'm glad they were included.
I do think Colson is a bit historically and theologically dishonest in a few places. While this isn't particularly surprising since he spearheaded "Evangelicals and Catholics Together", I am disappointed about it regardless. In Chapter 31, "Saved to What?", Colson writes:
In the very midst of the Reformation battles, a group of Catholic and Protestant leaders, including a cardinal from the Vatican, met at Regensberg, Germany, in the Colloquy of Ratisbon. The group reached an agreement on the doctrine of justification, which had been the great opening wedge of the Reformation (though discussions foundered on other issues, such as the Mass). One of the Protestant participants wrote a letter to a friend, in which he said, "You will be astonished that our opponents yielded so much... [they] have thus retained the substance of the true doctrine." The writer of that letter was a young aide to the Protestant negotiators. His name was John Calvin.
In his quoting of Calvin, Colson conveniently left out a dry remark about the stubbornness of the opposing party. The full quote reads (emphasis mine):
You will be astonished, I am sure, that our opponents have yielded so much... Our friends have thus retained also the substance of the true doctrine, so that nothing can be comprehended within it which is not to be found in our writings; you will desire, I know, a clearer exposition, and, in that respect, you shall find me in complete agreement with yourself. However, if you consider with what kind of men we have to agree upon this doctrine, you will acknowledge that much has been accomplished. [source: https://www.reformation21.org/featured/the-regensburg-colloquy-1541.php]
Colson also neglected to mention what was to soon follow this colloquy. Only four years after, the Roman Catholic Church would call the Council of Trent from 1545-63. Session 6, Canon 9 declares:
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema. [source: https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html]
So, it matters little what agreement was reached at Ratisbon if an official council of the RCC undid it almost immediately after. Colson fails to mention this, and instead insists that we need to embrace mere Christianity and embrace the truths of Scripture and ancient creeds (ignoring the fact that Scripture is interpreted very differently among evangelicals and Catholics). The creeds part even I agree with, but I was/am irritated by the lack of academic sincerity on his other points. Both churches can absolutely work together, and do, but pretending that we actually agree on justification is pretty ridiculous.
------------
I know I harped on him a lot for these few things, but it's really not a bad book; it's a majority good. I just think it should be condensed and historically accurate.
A rather laborious read that I had to slog my way through. This is a long book; my copy clocked in at 491 pages, excluding the appendices with various notes and extra content. That's not to say that a long book is a bad thing, but it feels like it was avoidable for this title. By the end, I had the distinct impression that Colson liked the sound of his own voice (or rather, indulges in his own prose). I don't know if that's completely fair for me to say, but this book was just dry for the most part. Much of what he had to say surely could have been condensed and edited.
There are a handful of excellent chapters that recount stories from various people to show how the arguments of the book play out in the lives of real people. These were by far my favorite parts, and I'm glad they were included.
I do think Colson is a bit historically and theologically dishonest in a few places. While this isn't particularly surprising since he spearheaded "Evangelicals and Catholics Together", I am disappointed about it regardless. In Chapter 31, "Saved to What?", Colson writes:
In the very midst of the Reformation battles, a group of Catholic and Protestant leaders, including a cardinal from the Vatican, met at Regensberg, Germany, in the Colloquy of Ratisbon. The group reached an agreement on the doctrine of justification, which had been the great opening wedge of the Reformation (though discussions foundered on other issues, such as the Mass). One of the Protestant participants wrote a letter to a friend, in which he said, "You will be astonished that our opponents yielded so much... [they] have thus retained the substance of the true doctrine." The writer of that letter was a young aide to the Protestant negotiators. His name was John Calvin.
In his quoting of Calvin, Colson conveniently left out a dry remark about the stubbornness of the opposing party. The full quote reads (emphasis mine):
You will be astonished, I am sure, that our opponents have yielded so much... Our friends have thus retained also the substance of the true doctrine, so that nothing can be comprehended within it which is not to be found in our writings; you will desire, I know, a clearer exposition, and, in that respect, you shall find me in complete agreement with yourself. However, if you consider with what kind of men we have to agree upon this doctrine, you will acknowledge that much has been accomplished. [source: https://www.reformation21.org/featured/the-regensburg-colloquy-1541.php]
Colson also neglected to mention what was to soon follow this colloquy. Only four years after, the Roman Catholic Church would call the Council of Trent from 1545-63. Session 6, Canon 9 declares:
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema. [source: https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html]
So, it matters little what agreement was reached at Ratisbon if an official council of the RCC undid it almost immediately after. Colson fails to mention this, and instead insists that we need to embrace mere Christianity and embrace the truths of Scripture and ancient creeds (ignoring the fact that Scripture is interpreted very differently among evangelicals and Catholics). The creeds part even I agree with, but I was/am irritated by the lack of academic sincerity on his other points. Both churches can absolutely work together, and do, but pretending that we actually agree on justification is pretty ridiculous.
------------
I know I harped on him a lot for these few things, but it's really not a bad book; it's a majority good. I just think it should be condensed and historically accurate.