A short text on the environment and Christianity. For a short book, it had much to reflect and I think that it was the down fall. I would rather not have had a wide view and more of details in a few things instead of all over the place. The heart of the environment is we are to take care of this world we live in. To look at the world as God's creation and how it touches everyone and everything. The environment has been very individualistic instead of an act of worship. Not worshiping creation but the creator. Big difference and the difference needs to be understood.

This may be a text where you must read several times to grapple what was missed in previous readings. A good conversation to have.

A special thank you to Crossway Publishing and Netgalley for the ARC and the opportunity to post an honest review.

For a book originally written so long ago, this remains incredibly relevant.. The book doesn't make it possible to distinguish what came from Schaeffer and what came from Middelmann, but I came away with a newfound appreciation for their sharp intellect. The entire book is a cohesively argued treatise where each chapter builds on a single narrative argument rather than what you commonly get with books in this genre (i.e., a collection of loosely related ideas connected to the broader topic). Even if you don't read the whole book in one sitting, you will probably want to reskim it to follow the flow of ideas leading to the book's conclusion. Regardless of whether you've read it all in one sitting, you also might find yourself having to reread to help you digest the appendices.

The authors' ability to birth such a theologically and philosophically rich book in response to two long-form essays is a testament to the intellectual rigor they apply to their analysis, but this is also likely to be a stumbling block for readers who find the way they test ideas by extrapolating to their ideological extremes pedantic. I don't know if White and Means have read this book since it's initial publication, but this book would be greatly enriched if it also included a response from them. Given the extrapolation of ideas from their respective articles, I expect that they might not feel like their ideas were fairly characterized or represented. That said, the logical flow and conclusion of the book would remain robust even if the work of White and Means were not presented as the basis for a response.

Not one of Schaeffer's best-known books, but as always very readable and with excellent points. Especially worth reading alongside his analyses of the American counterculture movement (vol. 3 of his complete works).