A Symposium on Worldview
Some words and concepts need to be done away with. “Thought Leader” is a good example. The phrase is dreadful, even vacuous. When I am king, it will be first against the wall, along with any foolhardy enough to utter it. You have been warned.
At times, I have felt a similar frustration with the idea of “worldview.” However, I find the concept inescapable, given the intellectual milieu I move in. Perhaps the Hillsdale historian D. G. Hart was onto something when he gave the term the hyphenated treatment. For Hart, it became “w-w.” This was a way of talking about the thing you didn’t want to mention.
Yet, here we are, talking about w-w. Indeed, I am the author of a recent book on this very topic, one that advocates for continuing to use w-w in a new way. Recent eruptions on social media and YouTube to criticisms of w-w, like James White’s response to Stephen Wolfe, to more measured responses from reviewers of Against Worldview, show that worldview is not going away any time soon. Nor should it, in my view. So, where to? How do we proceed if we want to make something of the Christian worldview idea?
The ‘Is’ Critique
There are usually two reasons an idea or concept becomes problematic. There is the question of what a concept is. This revolves around definitions and semantics. There is also the question of what a concept does. Here, the problem is utility. How is the thing in question used? And what are the results of that use? The worldview concept, as the reformed and evangelical world knows it, suffers in both of these senses.
Without merely rehearsing arguments I have articulated elsewhere, I want to focus on two key problems with what the worldview concept is. First, the concept assumes epistemological comprehensiveness. Despite the best intentions of Christian worldview thinkers to the contrary, the w-w idea usually results in epistemic presumption, amounting to people believing that because they are Christian they are thinking in a Christian fashion. Now, there is something to this idea. Someone’s intellect can be sanctified, we can conform our thinking to the patterns of scripture, and people’s ideas can be more, or less, Christian. Furthermore, there is space in Christian philosophy for affirming a distinctly Christian unity of thought.
The problem lies in the application of this idea. How can one define the boundaries of this unity? What belongs inside the Christian tent? One relevant example is that of the origins of the idea of worldview. German idealists are the font. Do we want to return to that particular font? To be frank, I don’t have a strong view either way. I’m a critical realist when it comes to epistemology, so I differ from Hegel and company on that issue. Yet, there are aspects of idealism that appeal and could even be consistent with Christian thought. How do we navigate this? With worldview-ism?
Certain strands of worldview-ism would want to exorcise German idealism and all her works because at root it is anti-Christian. I am thinking, here, of presuppositional approaches to philosophy and apologetics. Disqualification via epistemology is the easiest way to sum this approach up. If your epistemological basis is un-Christian, you’re off the reservation. The problem is, of course, that worldview is an idealist concept. Troubling? Ironically, only for worldview purists. For those who don’t believe such epistemological purity is possible, the leveraging of worldview for the Christian is not as risky. That’s not to say it is without its hazards, mind you, which should be obvious from my argument.
The second aspect of the is problem with w-w is that it warps Christian philosophies of education. Worldview is typically a deductive concept, whereas education is largely an inductive exercise. Obviously, we need some starting points, some foundations, a framework, a skeleton on which to put flesh. We shouldn’t do away with deductive thinking entirely. Those who are wise from experience and learning know enough about the world and God to lay down some basic presuppositions, if you will, that can undergird learning. However, do we know very much? As Christians, we have access to some extremely important basic truths about mankind, God, and creation, which give us a head start in some key areas of knowledge. The Swiss theologian, Emil Brunner, was onto something when he posited a spectrum of disciplines. Down one end of the spectrum lie fields of knowledge where the Christian faith has a significant impact. Down the other end of the spectrum you have, well, logging and computer hacking.
All of this calls for a large amount of modesty when it comes to framing a Christian education. Worldview educational philosophies tend towards the assumption that Christianity provides the learner with a comprehensive set of tools that shape all disciplines in a distinctly Christian fashion. Given the nature of knowledge and the nature of learning, we ought to be cautious about thinking along these lines. A better approach would be to make worldview the aim of education, rather than assuming worldview is a good method of education.
The ‘Does’ Critique
The critique of what w-w does is crucial to the current conversation, as crucial as the is critique. Here, I want to summarize and, in a sense, conflate two arguments, one from Stephen Wolfe, and one I make in Against Worldview and in a journal article in Church History. The concept of Christian w-w was introduced for particular reasons in particular contexts.
Christian worldview was, and remains, a combat concept; that is, it served to differentiate Christianity from other ideologies and religious systems in a context of heightened cultural conflict. Originally, that context was the late nineteenth century. As the very real and very understandable sense of cultural conflict and religious tension rose to ever greater heights across the twentieth century, new iterations of Christian worldview-ism came to prominence. This is exemplified by Nancy Pearcey’s and Chuck Colson’s rhetoric of a “cosmic war” between worldviews.
In sum, worldview generalizes the differences between peoples, groups, and ideologies, sometimes in helpful ways, sometimes in less-helpful ways. Wolfe added another insightful layer to this when he recently stated that worldview thinking was introduced by Christians “to neutralize these ideas for the average person, not by analyzing data, refuting propositions, showing invalidity, criticizing methodology, knowing the actual facts on the ground.” To recall an earlier point in this article, it blamed apparently bad ideas and purportedly un-Christian thinking and phenomena on faulty presuppositions. The world out there could be explained via “a universal method of ‘worldview analysis.’” Wolfe furthers the critique by observing that this resulted in a “democratization of apologetics,” and an overemphasis on ordained and non-ordained ministers needing to have answers to every intellectual and cultural challenge that the world throws at Christians. In other words, the conviction was that worldview analysis equips all Christians, including ministers, with the tools to critique worldly ideas.
The trouble is, of course, it didn’t really equip laypeople or ministers all that well. One of the results of this is an intellectually- and historically-emaciated evangelical Protestantism which is leaking people to other Christian traditions that appear more robust. Worldview-ism was a quick and dirty shortcut to intellectual credibility and cultural ballast. In the rush to provide apologetic answers and a unified vision of life and the world, worldview thinkers left some important things behind.
Rapprochement
Lest it appear that I am, in the end, against worldview, I want to finish on a more positive note. I sincerely believe there is potential in the worldview concept, if we move away from the prescriptive, deductive version that predominates in conservative Christian circles. Worldview can be done well, and it sometimes is done well. Here, a hat should be tipped in the direction of Douglas Wilson.
In a recent article defending Christian w-w, Wilson correctly observes that the Christian’s life of loving God with heart soul, mind and strength, and loving neighbor, must have something unifying the effort. The unifying principle ought to be Christ and the Scriptures. Wilson also explains his idea of a worldview wheel, combining catechesis, narrative, lifestyle, and ritual, with Christ as the axle. Here, I have no argument at the level of principle. Wilson’s lived-out, real-life version of joined-up worldview-ism is also worth noting.
Classical Christian schools and colleges that display genuine intellectual excellence and charity, a joyful and worshipful Christian community, and a missional desire to impact an unbelieving world – these speak to the positive outcomes of Christian worldview thinking, which affirms that Christ ought to impact all of life, to the glory of the triune God. Some kinds of worldview thinking really drive at a desire for an integrated vision of the Christian life of the mind, and life in God’s world. Being charitable, I could say all worldview thinkers want to see something along these lines.
However, there are significant pitfalls many fall into when using worldview. This doesn’t mean we ought to give up on seeking faithfulness in every area of life. Nor should we abstain from reaching for Christian truth in all areas of intellectual pursuit. A Christian worldview could be understood as one of the goals of sanctification. It definitely ought to be the goal of Christian education. Worldview isn’t beyond saving and certainly doesn’t need to face the firing squad. But it will require some rethinking if it is to continue to reap benefits for Christ’s church.
Image: Carl Goebel (1824 – 1899), Cacciatori in montagna, 1870.
