Alex Forrest

Christian. Worldview. Thinking.

You are here: Home / Archives for Worldview

“Dark Ages” and “Enlightenment”

by 1 Comment

I’m reading a very interesting book by sociologist Rodney Stark entitled For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery. The subtitle aptly describes the gist of the book, but the research and the historical details are fascinating.

One thrust of the book is Stark’s strong argument that the whole idea of a historically deep divide and hostility between science and Christianity is a historical fiction created by intellectuals who sought to discredit religion in general and Christianity in particular. Stark argues, “To these ends they sought credit for the ‘Scientific Revolution’ (another of their concepts), even though none of them had played any significant part in the scientific enterprise. One of the first steps in this effort was to designate their own era as the ‘Enlightenment,” and to claim it was a sudden and complete disjuncture with the past.” Men like Hume and Voltaire sought to “[wrap] themselves in the achievements of science to authenticate theri condemnation of reigion in general.”

Stark argues that science did not just emerge out of nowhere, but rather evolved out of the fertile intellectual climate of the Middle Ages – one that invented the university. And scientists were not standing and courageously shaking their fist at the Church but were, rather, mostly very devout believers who sought to grow in the knowledge of creation as an act of worshipping the Creator. The Christian belief in a perfect and orderly God who had created the universe with a likewise ordered complexity that could be discovered. There is, after all, a reason that science as we know it developed in Europe. Its not that Europeans were smarter, just that they had the worldview framework necessary for the emergence of science.

So, contrary to the popular myth, science and faith have not always been avowed enemies; the Church did not stifle scientific discovery as a matter of regular policy. Indeed, the Church gave rise to science.

Rescue Worldview: There are no Naturalists in New Orleans

by 1 Comment

Let’s step back from the hysteria and think about the fiasco in New Orleans from a different angle – that of worldview.

I think we have an example here of the fact that very few people really live as Naturalists.

New Orleans and Naturalism

Briefly, the Naturalist believes that matter is all that exists – the stuff of the physical universe is all there is. In the famous words of the late Carl Sagan, “The universe is all there is, ever was, and ever wll be.” Darwinian evolution provides the mechanism for explaining the origin of life (the creation narrative, if you will).

One problem with such a view is what implications it holds for humanity. No longer do human beings hold any special intrinsic value, no longer can they be viewed as anything more than complicated conglomerations of matter, the result of random forces at work over eons of time. For the Darwinian Naturalist the theme of history is “survival of the fittest.” Life is nothing more than a struggle for your genes to perpetuate themselves. (So you have people equating people and animals. Despite the behavior of some in New Orleans, most of us know intuitively that humans are different.)

Now flash forward to flood-ravaged New Orleans. Nature is doing what nature does, and a lot of human beings have come up losers in the game of Russian roulette that is the universe.

Too bad. The human race is certainly not threatened. Why, then, the sudden outpouring of concern and humanitarian relief on the part of many who have no stake in what happens to New Orleans or its residents?

Why care – especially about those who are old and sick? That doesn’t sound like natural selection.

The opposite of Naturalism

Why, indeed. In contrast to Naturalism, the biblical worldview (philosophers call it “Christian Theism”) affords a place of utmost dignity and respect to humanity. Human beings have intrinsic worth because they are made in God’s image, have been made stewards of creation, and are particularly called into relationship with the Creator. Obviously that image is marred by sin, but nonetheless it is there. That’s why every life is valuable, even that of the sick, the poor, and the handicapped.

Deep within we recognize that human life is significant – this intuition is one result of the divine imprinateur on each of us. Without the influence of the Christian worldview, we wouldn’t be complaining about how long the rescue was taking.

If we were consistent naturalists, we wouldn’t really care.

The Legacy of Revivalism in Christian Leadership

by Leave a Comment

In a fascinating section in her important book Total Truth, Nancy Pearcey examines the historical context that gave rise to two-storied thinking.

She shows how the changing political ethos of 18-19th century America influenced and shaped the religious experience of the country, paying particular attention to the revivalist impulse of the Second Great Awakening in the 1800s. In reading this section, one can’t help but become very aware of how these impulses continue to define and shape Evangelicalism – especially in the areas of ecclesiology (the theological doctrine of the Church) and soteriology (the theological doctrine of salvation).

You need to read it.

In one particularly telling section, she describes the changing model of leadership and Christian ministry that emerged. Circuit riders and big-tent revivalists replaced pastors as those who wielded primary spiritual influence. No longer, then, did these leaders have much personal connection or relationship with those they influenced. And it didn’t really matter that much because religion was becoming increasingly an individual matter of the heart anyway.

The evangelical celebrity culture was born.

Pearcey writes:

“The populist branch of the evangelical movemenet cast aside an older model of leaers as holy men and instead gave rise to leaders who were entrepreneurs – pragmatic marketers who were willing to use whatever worked to get conversions.”

Pragmatic methods of evangelism, aimed at “producing” conversions (or “decisions for Christ”), were honed and practiced. The evangelical ideal of a Christian minister shifted from theological instruction and care to a “popular crusader and exhorter,” and theological education became more focused on practical instructions and pastoral techniques.

Not surprisingly, preaching changed too. “Expository preaching on biblical texts gave way to topical sermons on the felt needs of the congregation.” The goal was not instruction but an emotional charge.

“Increasingly, the populist preacher became a performer, stringing together stories and anecdotes, often from his own life.”

Does all of this sound pretty familiar to you too?
(Quotes are from p. 286-7)

Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a two-storied view of truth

by 4 Comments

A lot of what I write about is influenced by Francis Schaeffer – especially his discussion of two-storied thinking. Matthew Hall brings up a great example of such thinking as it pertains to the way detractors of Intelligent Design make their case.

He quotes Time magazine’s Charles Krauthammer:

To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science, which is the acquisition of new knowledge through hypothesis, experimentation and evidence. To teach it as science is to encourage the supercilious caricature of America as a nation in the thrall of religious authority. To teach it as science is to discredit the welcome recent advances in permitting the public expression of religion. Faith can and should be proclaimed from every mountaintop and city square. But it has no place in science class. To impose it on the teaching of evolution is not just to invite ridicule but to earn it.

Did you catch the duality inherent to his position?

Krauthammer is operating from a fractured view of truth – what Schaeffer (and later Nancy Pearcy) describe as a two-storied view of truth. The lower story of the house is the realm of science and objective fact and truth, with the upper story housing the realm of subjective personal values and preferences (including faith and religion).

Such upper-story “values” are all fine and can be a nice emotional boost but aren’t really tied to universal truths about reality and they certainly have no business operating in the lower story. They are “true for you” but not really true in an objective, universal sense. Such a perspective pervades the discussion of ID and Darwinism (not on the part of the ID guys).

The debate surrounding Darwin has as much to do with philosophy and worldview than with science. Maybe more.

Darwin enabled philosophical naturalists (those who believe the universe is a closed system – that nothing exists outside or apart from it) to provide a narrative for their belief, a story and explanation of origins that did not rely on anything transcendent. Emboldened, they then rewrote the rules of science.

Naturalists have successfully changed the rules of science to methodological naturalism.

In other words, when doing “pure science,” one cannot look beyond the physical/material realm for answers or explanation. So one MUST, according to such a view, adopt the two-storied view of truth in order to be “scientific.”

So Intelligent Design is received with a knee-jerk reaction that tries to kick it upstairs – to the realm of subjective values and religious preferences, where it cannot interfere with “science.” It is a non-starter.

The same bifurcation of truth exists, incidentally, when people talk about Supreme Court judges and politicians who shouldn’t let their personal beliefs or religion influence their judicial decisions. Most talk of “values” reinforces this dichotomy – even Christians who use that terminology rather than “truth.”

Creation Science Museum

by 1 Comment

Ran across an interesting story about a new museum being built near Covington, a suburb of Cincinnati in Northern Kentucky. The museum is being built by Answers in Genesis, a Christian ministry whose goal is to promote a “Young Earth” creationist account of the Earth’s origins as an alternative to the narrative of evolution that reigns in prettymuch all other museums of natural history. Young Earth Creationism is the view that the seven days described in the creation account of Genesis 1 were literal 24-hour days. Many believers, like those at AIG, take this as a fundamental of the faith. Many others, however, believe that the biblical account does not necessarily prescribe 7 literal days and could be compatible with a longer period of time (a view called, appopriately enough, “Old Earth Creationism.” Those on both side of the intramural debate would argue that Darwinian evolution (macro-evolution) is inconsistent with Scripture and happens also to be bad science (all truth is God’s truth, after all.) Of course most Naturalists will hold to Darwinian evolution as a matter of first principle – every religion and worldview must have a story of origins and theirs comes from Darwin. That’s why they get so agitated when other scientists challenge Darwin.

Anyway, with that background, I just thought it was worth mentioning that the controversial museum is slated to open up the road from here in early 2007. I’m sure it will get a lot of negative press from the usual sources, but that it will be fairly successful anyway. Wherever a Christian falls in the debate between old and young earth creation, it is nice to have some educational alternative that seeks to present natural history in the framework of a Christian worldview.

The Ten Commandments and the legal rejection of Absolute Truth

by 3 Comments

The big news out of the Supreme Court this week, of course, involved two decisions regarding public displays of the Ten Commandments.

In one case, the Court ruled that a monument of the commandments had to be removed in Pulaski County Kentucky. In another, it ruled that a similar monument could remain in Texas where it was displayed in tandem with other historical documents.

Many have expressed frustration over the resolution of the Kentucky case in particular. In all honesty, I just don’t see why such displays are a big deal. I’m not sure that courthouse displays of the Ten Commandments really influence people one way or the other. We do not live in a Christian nation, so it seems to me that we should not be surprised when that nation rejects official displays of Judeo-Christian faith. I’m just not that bothered by it; maybe you are.

The Reaction Betrays a Two-Storied Worldview

I do think that some of the popular conceptions about the issue betray faulty thinking. A local radio host, in talking about these decisions, said personal belief has no place in a court of law. I think many would echo those sentiments.

Is that a good thing?

Here we see a classic example of the two-story thinking I described in an earlier post (and that Francis Schaeffer diagnosed decades ago). You have the upper story of private, personal beliefs or values, and the lower story of public fact. The two levels have nothing to do with each other, and so anything that smacks of religious conviction is relegated upstairs to the realm of personal values that really have no business in the real world.

The Christian View of Truth

Christianity, of course, posits no such distinction. Instead it is a truly holistic faith, one that articulates an entire worldview.

It claims to hold Truth (capital T) that is real and applicable to all things – even (or especially) a court of law, where, at least in theory, decisions on right and wrong are made in a search for truth and justice.

But that’s not how the legal game is really played. As Pearcey writes, the modern practice of law seems to have more to do with spinning facts, manipulating juries, and looking for legal loopholes to get a client the victory or acquittal they need. The quest is for a win rather than for the truth. Pragmatism and situational ethics hold sway.

So it ought not surprise us that a court would reject displays of a document purporting to form the basis for absolute truth and morality.

So as Christians we ought not be surprised. Indeed, ultimately we should not reall by worried about these decisions. What matters is not what statues are erected in the town square, but what worldview is at work in the hearts and minds of the people.

We need to understand and claim the biblical worldview that shatters the divide between the upper and lower story.

What is a Worldview anyway?

by 1 Comment

As you probably know, I’m in the midst of working on a PhD in Worldview and Apologetics. And while the two are related, I tend to be more interested in the Worldview than the Apologetics. In other words, my goal is not to be a guy on a stage having a debate with the naturalistic professor from State U., but to teach believers (college students and others) what it means to have and live out of a Christian worldview. Many people get a quizzical expression on their face upon hearing that, “What does that mean?”

Fortunately, Nancy Pearcey wonderfully defines the concept for us in the introduction to Total Truth. What follows will largely (though not totally) be derived from what she says.

I suppose it might sound redundant to say it, but “worldview” literally derives from a German term that means “view of the world.” It is the conceptual framework through which one views all of life and evaluates it. Pearcey explains: “German Romanticism developed the idea that cultures are complex wholes, where a certain outlook on life, or spirit of the age, is expressed across the board – in art, literature, and social institutions as well as in formal philosophy. The best way to understand the products of any culture, then, is to grasp the underlying worldview being expressed.” (p 24) Later on Dutch reformed thinkers like Abraham Kuyper and Herman Dooyeweerd began asserting that Christians should develop and total life-and-world view that was built upon the truth of biblical revelation rather than inculcating the spirit of the world.

I love this statement from Pearcey: “The purpose of worldview studies is nothing less than to liberate Christianity from its cultural captivity, unleashing its power to transform the world.” (17) She quotes Charles Spurgeon, the great English Baptist preacher of the 19th Century, who said, “The gospel is like a caged lion. It does not need to be defended, it just needs to be let out of its cage.”

The liberation that is needed, she argues, is largely liberation from the secular/sacred dichotomy I wrote about last week. Christianity is not just a matter of the heart – it is also a matter of the mind. Christ calls for total commitment – not just our hearts – one that impacts and influences every aspect of our lives. Our relationship with Him ought to be the hub around which everything else in our life moves and holds together. For that to be the case, we must learn what it means to love the Lord with our minds.

Paul told the Roman church: “Do not be conformed any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is…” We are called to break out of the mold that the world squeezes us into, to which we are conditioned our whole lives. How do we do this? By transformed minds. We must change the way we think – we must change our worldview. When this begins to happen, we learn how we should act – what God’s will is. Too often we think of “religion” as simply a matter of moral codes, of what we should and should not do. Spiritual growth is then thought of in terms of doing better, and sometimes such discussions resemble a self-help seminar. What we see here, however, is that right living flows from right thinking. We must change our minds if we want to change our behavior. Our minds, our worldview, must be conformed to Christ if our actions will be. (Lest anyone protest, I wholeheartedly believe that Christianity is not just a matter of mind – it is a matter of heart also, but I think we usually err on the other side.)

That’s why Pearcey says, “Genuine worldview thinking is far more than a mental strategy or a new spin on current events. At the core, it is a deepening of our spiritual character and the character of our lives.”

Newsletter

Categories