Why Worldview Thinking is Misused By So Many Modern Christians
June 7, 2010
John H. Armstrong
ACT 3 Weekly
June 7, 2010
Why Worldview Thinking is Misused By So Many Modern Christians
John H. Armstrong
For several weeks I have critiqued the widely used concept that is popularly called “a Christian worldview.” For some this type of thinking has been used to promote THE Christian worldview. I have sought to show why this approach is as harmful as the opposite, namely a pious reaction to all serious worldview thought based upon a private, personal faith that has no coherent understanding of how Christian faith can/should work in modern life. While I reject the checklist of so many conservative worldview schemes I also reject the abysmally weak opposite extreme which has no interest in speaking and living the faith missionally in the marketplace.
I am reminded of the children’s song, “This Little Light of Mine.” You probably know it. The refrain says over and over that God has given me a little light and “I’m going to let it shine . . .” God has given us light so we must let it shine. But why do we keep messing up the light? I am convinced we do mess it up based not upon the data I have read about what the world thinks of our light. I am also convinced by the frequent conversations that I have with non-believers who have little or no regard for Christians. In the past few weeks I have listened again and again as non-Christians told me what they despise about us. Perhaps this has made me think about this worldview question in a fresh way. If our worldview training is improving, as so many say that it is, then why are we still failing to actually impact so little of the culture and so few people?
Our Context
Modern life in the West is deeply rooted in the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Simply put, modernity is the water we swim in as a culture. None of us is immune to the influence of modernity regardless of how deeply we feel that we are faithful to the message of Scripture.
Modernism refers to what is characteristic of the Western intellectual tradition in the period following the Reformation. It does not refer to “whatever is modern, or most recent.” It refers to a framework of ideas that define culture as we know and experience it. Most philosophers believe that modernism began with the work of the French philosopher, René Descartes (1596-1650). Descartes lived in a time when the Reformation and Counter-Reformation had created a deepening schism in both church and culture. Religious authority was not only challenged by some Christians but under attack in every quarter of society. Descartes was particularly keen to put the basis for human knowledge on a firmer foundation. What Descartes desired to do was to formulate a solution to the growing problem of skepticism.
Descartes’ underlying belief was that skepticism could only be defeated when the truth of a particular belief could be established as certain. His project was to ground all knowledge on a foundation that could be shown to be certain. Most scholars agree that he failed in this goal but he succeeded in changing the direction of how people thought about knowledge and what they could believe and why they should believe it. Descartes greatest contribution came in helping to shape a new way of doing science. He convinced people that science was possible because the physical world could be understood in intelligible ways. This was so because God had ordered the human mind in such a way that it could understand God’s mind. The basic idea that impacted science so directly was that the physical world could be understood in terms that are mathematical, a much more precise science than had been used previously.
What does all of this have to do with us? Well, after Descartes another philosopher named John Locke (1632-1704) stressed the empirical nature of what became the modern scientific mind. Then Isaac Newton (1642-1727) helped the modern West embrace a more mechanical view of the universe. Newton’s view did not interpret the world as organic, or transcendental, but as a kind of divinely operated machine that worked according to demonstrable laws. This led modern thinkers to pursue new clarity in all the sciences. This also included new approaches to philosophy and theology. It is the latter with which I am most interested.
The Impact of Modernism on Theology
The new Cartesian (from Descartes of course) approach equated truth with scientific and mathematical certainty. In the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries this quest for certitude spread into every aspect of learning and practice. Theologians and biblical teachers were not immune to this modern way of thinking. The search for clear, provable, distinct ideas spread over time. Theologians began to create theories and doctrines based upon this modernistic model.
All of this resulted in two approaches within Protestantism. (Only later did this impact the Catholic Church, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.) On one side a more liberal approach emerged as Christians sought to argue for the Christian faith in a context where skepticism threatened the intellectual viability of Christian beliefs about divine revelation, the person of Christ, biblical miracles, the resurrection, etc. Liberal theology arose as an attempt to defend and practice piety while embracing the modern age fully and freely.
But conservative theology reacted against this new liberal thought and defended the faith against what it believed to be a massive compromise. But, and this is my important point here, the foundation upon which conservative theology was built was precisely the same—it was a modern foundation. Conservative theology was no longer content to tolerate different ways of understanding the one Christian faith. It now believed, based upon a way of thinking that had never previously impacted the church, that technically defined theories of revelation and inspiration were essential to core orthodoxy. It further believed that precise doctrinal formulations could be molded in a way that fit them together like pieces of a great puzzle. In time this comprehensive (humanly developed) system was called: “The truth.” It is this approach that produced the kinds of worldview problems that I wrote about the last several weeks.
Does Scripture Have a Single Meaning?
A few weeks ago I would not have felt as strongly about this as I do now. I encountered, firsthand, the very problem that I am writing about by listening to repeated stories about Christian debates, schisms and power-plays.
Until the rise of modernity Christian theologians functioned in a very different manner. They never argued, for example, that Scripture had a single meaning. The hermeneutical approach (i.e. how we interpret the text of the Bible) the church employed for centuries saw Scripture as an infinite source of truth. It believed that the study of the Bible was a quest for knowing the truth that God revealed through Scripture. Sometimes the meaning of sacred Scripture was not obvious. Sometimes a text might even have several meanings when understood in light of the whole of Scripture and the bigger picture of divine revelation.
I am convinced that anyone who reads the ancient writers and interpreters will soon discover a different approach to the Bible from that developed in modern culture. St. Augustine illustrates my point quite well when he writes about the creation account in Genesis.
Although I hear people say “Moses meant this” or “Moses mean that,” I think it is more truly religious to say “Why should be not have had both meanings in mind, if both are true? And if others see in the same words a third, or a fourth, or any number of true meanings, why should we not believe that Moses saw them all? There is only one God, who caused Moses to write the Holy Scripture in the way best suited to the minds of great numbers of men who would all see truths in them, though not the same truths in each case.”
For my part I declare resolutely and with all my heart that if I were called upon to write a book which was vested with the highest authority, I should prefer to write it in such a way that a reader could find re-echoed in my words whatever truths he was able to apprehend. I would rather write in this way than impose a single true meaning so explicitly that it would exclude all others (The Confessions of St. Augustine, trans. Edward B. Pusey, 1962, 308).
Conclusion
When language is understood as a kind of mathematics, where all the elements are fixed and certain with universal and single meanings, then the church has traded its soul to a way of thinking that has little or nothing to do with the world of the Bible. If what you crave is certitude then a modern system will give it to you. I have come to believe that this is why some Christians flock to debates about apologetics, about Calvinism vs. Arminianism or about various worldview(s). They want (emotionally it may be said that they “need”) certitude and the answers they discover give them what they are looking for in modern Christianity. But this generally brings about the loss of true mystery. I have never found such an approach genuinely helpful. Augustine speaks to my own heart powerfully when he says:
[To those who claim that they alone know the precise meaning of the Bible, they do so] not because they are men of God or because they have seen in the heart of Moses, your servant, that their explanation is the right one, but simply because they are proud. They have no knowledge of the thoughts of his mind, but they are in love with their own opinions, not because they are true, but because they are their own (Confessions, 301).
According to the one of the church’s greatest theologians ever it is pride, and a sense of the personal ownership of the truth, that lies at the foundation of such claims about truth and worldview. Maybe the first step we need to make to regain a right approach to worldview thinking would be humility.