Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost posts some interesting thoughts about the criteria for evaluating worldviews, which provoked the flurry of comments (over 220!) that seems typical for Joe’s site. Ultimately this is all about epistemology, and I’m not quite sure about Norman Geisler’s “undeniability” criteria referenced in Joe’s post. Actually, I am fairly sure about it — it doesn’t make much sense to me, because certain things are “undeniable” only if you approach them based on assumptions that are not undeniable. It’s that whole foundationalism / infinite regress problem again.
But what I really wonder is whether all this energy spent on justifying our “worldview” is misplaced. I don’t name a “worldview” as Lord. I name Jesus as Lord. Jesus didn’t commission me to argue with people about my “worldview.” He commissioned me to introduce people to him so that they could become his disciples. In other words, it’s not about the system of thought I’ve built up around the truths of Christianity. It’s about a relationship with Christ.
This isn’t to discount the importance of ideas or the need to bring Christian truth to bear in the public square. In fact, much of my working energy is devoted to those very things. But it seems to me that there’s a dangerous shift afoot. Not long ago, Evangelicals had to be coaxed into the public square. Now, we’re there with a vengance — sometimes literally with a vengance. It seems we’re sometimes more interested in making arguments about politics and policy than in bringing people to the savior.
The utlimate justification for our “worldview” isn’t “undeniability” or any other epistemic criteria. It’s Christ. Some things we “know” only because we’ve been called into a relationship with Christ. If our principal focus is “worldviews” rather than Christ, we will miss the boat.
3 replies on “Worldview or Relationship; or, Why am I a Christian?”
Three thoughts: (1) worldview talk is primarily apologetic in function. It is not intended to be the primary language of confession, but a mode of interaction in apologetic contexts.
(2) it’s primary purpose is not to be defended, but to assert the epistemological equality of “faith”-views with other worldviews. That is, it asserts that we all have axiomatic positions upong which we rest our actions and beliefs. The traditional scientistic/Enlightenment attack on Christian faith therefore is cut off.
(3) it’s secondary and tertiary purposes are to sensitize and widen in a related way. When we talke about our worldview (notice never worldviewS), such talk suggests that our foundational view commitment colors all other aspects of our perception. Our faith (and whatever fundamental commitment someone else has) is directly related to all other commitments. Thus, it senstizes the worldview holder to constantly refer all issues back to the core commitment/view. Thus, it claims a widened scope for religious belief. Efforts to corral religious belief into ethical/personal interiority are repelled by claims that all aspects of belief and action are expressions of our faith worldview.
I won’t sound nearly as philosophical as you guys, but McLendon’s Systematic Theology deals with this very issue. He notes in his Witness portion that relativism is accurate to the point that each culture/worldview can only be completely understood by those who participate in it (thus, the ‘radical’ approach in the last several hundred years with the missionary revival of missionaries actually becoming part of the community that they witness to). To the individual who is convicted of their worldview, however, there is only one truth (their own, or they would not be convicted of it – interestingly, this defuses the traditional arguments against relativism in that even complete relativity is a conviction held…). The only way to overcome these polar problems (foundational convictions that are different for every worldview) is to engage in communal or dialogue format that convinces the other person that my conviction is better adapted to reality than other convictions. Thus, the importance in witnessing of living, relating, and telling (we Christians seem only to focus on the latter….). For what its worth, my two cents 🙂
Good points. I agree with all of you.
1) it can be a distraction, and it isn’t Lord.
2) it can be useful in interacting with others.
3) it does allow us to simultaneously acknowledge inescapable subjectivity and reject subjectivism.
Cheers,
PGE