HOME | DONATE | CONTACT US | FACEBOOK


 

 Navigation key

The Article Archives
Topic: Act 3 Weekly

The Value of Proper Worldview Thinking: Restoring the Christian View of Grace and Nature

June 21, 2010
John H. Armstrong
tweet this  share this on facebook



ACT 3 Weekly

June 21, 2010

 

The Value of Proper Worldview Thinking: Restoring the Christian View of Grace and Nature

 

John H. Armstrong

 

Philosopher and theologian A.M. Wolters says the idea of a worldview, the subject that we have considered for the past several weeks, is often restricted to differences among Christians with respect to how they see the world. If we restrict the worldview concept to the traditions of historic Christianity (i.e. where adherence to the ecumenical creeds of the early church is central) then we are able to distinguish four types of Christian worldviews. These four distinctions are based, at least theologically, upon how we understand grace and nature. H. Richard Niebuhr’s classic book, Christ and Culture, was built on this very type of thinking, as some will readily see.

 

The Problem of Dualism

 

The first three common Christian approaches to worldview involve some kind of dualism. The reason this is true is because each one sees the relationship between grace (which is shorthand for everything involved in redemption or directly related to the gospel) and nature in one of three ways:

 

  1. Grace opposes nature (nature refers here to everything involved in God’s good, yet fallen, creation). This view is the most radically anti-creation and anti-cultural of all Christian views. Some extreme forms of pietism adopt this approach to culture. Much of my own influence from fundamentalism was shaped by this type of thinking. This view results in a deep fear of anything that is not directly related to Scripture and redemption.

 

  1. Grace supplements nature. This view sees nature and culture as so fallen that it must be uprooted and replaced whole. The goal of grace is to replace fallen culture and to tame the wild and out-of-control world we live in.

 

  1. Grace flanks nature. While nature remains, and is sometimes valuable, it must eventually be outflanked by the spiritual message of the church. In this approach the Christian is less likely to be quite so negative to culture but little intrinsic importance is attributed to nature or culture.

 

In each of these three approaches the worldview adopted establishes a sharp dichotomy between the sacred and secular. All of these approaches are still popular and each has been quite influential in modern Christian thought and practice, especially among conservative Christians. This may explain, at least partially I think, why so many Christians do not love the created world but oppose it with deep suspicion, often fear. They see it as something that may have been beautiful before the fall but now the earth is a wasted trash bin waiting for final destruction at the return of Christ. In each of these dualistic conceptions art, music and other expressions of culture are not very important since they will not last. Why build well, paint well, or write expressive music, poetry or prose when it all ultimately serves nothing but a temporary purpose? What will last is the spiritual, not material.

 

It should be noted in passing that all of this underscores some of the most popular heresies of our time about the end of this age and the return of Christ. Any view that sees Christ’s return as primarily centered in destruction is anti-biblical.

 

The reason why so many Christians have no appreciation for the care of the planet, for good art, for film and theater, for old and new forms of music, for glorious architecture or even for competition centered on earthly achievements (e.g. sports, games, etc.) is precisely because these activities are believed to contribute nothing to grace. God’s grace is always, in some form, superior to nature and all earthly pleasures so we must never elevate nature, and the human cultivation of natural gifts, into gracious ends in themselves.  

 

Grace Restoring Nature

 

Thankfully there is a fourth approach to grace and nature and I believe it is the correct one. This approach was held by Irenaeus, Augustine and Calvin, to name only three great Christian thinkers. Grace, in this view, restores nature. Grace allows healing and redeeming power to flow into and through nature. Nature, fallen as it is, can still inspire awe. Art, even though it is touched by human sin, can still create wonder and move the soul. Music, though written and produced for various reasons, can help us express ourselves very deeply. Even athletic competition, I would argue, can inspire the very best in the human spirit through the concept of sacrifice, teamwork and through enjoying victory and coping gracefully with defeat.

 

John Calvin saw that grace acted like medicine, as I noted at the end last week. It enters into the whole of nature to recover the health of the original. In this way the hard and fast distinctions that we make between the secular and the sacred are proven false. Your work, regardless of what you do (so long as it is honest and eschews evil), can be seen as good because nature, though cursed by the fall, is redeemed by grace. Building a wonderful and purposeful building adds to God’s design and serves people. Taking a photograph for pure pleasure, or even as a form of work, can honor God because it captures something of the glory of his creation. This worldview encourages various forms of literature as well. Something that will move and thrill people glorifies God. Obviously sin lurks underground in all of life but grace is always greater than all sin. And grace has invaded this planet in and through the material, the incarnation. This incarnation in the God-man Jesus Christ made all the created order truly good.

 

But there are some dangers in worldview thinking, as I’ve already shown. Popularly this kind of thinking has been abused, even by people who embrace this fourth category. In some ways the abuse of this concept is more likely to come from people who are not dualistic precisely because they have found this thinking so liberating.

 

Dangers with Worldview Thinking

 

  1. One of the inherent problems in much modern worldview thinking is to see this subject only as a matter of ideas, of learning and mastering facts about faith and culture. When this happens the danger is that Christians quickly forget that Christianity is first and foremost about our relationship with God, not about right ideas about nature and culture.

 

  1. When it is forgotten that Christianity is about a personal relationship with the Triune God, and I believe many Christians have forgotten this, we must be called us to radical discipleship and a personally embodied response to the world. Many worldview thinkers are too selective in how they see the world. The parts that they like they will emphasize and the rest they leave to the side. This particularly shows when partisan politics becomes central to worldview.

 

  1. The idea of a distinctive Christian worldview very often perpetuates the old Greek metaphors in which the idea of seeing is emphasized over hearing. The Bible clearly emphasizes hearing much more than seeing. We must hear God’s Word and follow Christ by learning to trust and obey. We are allowed to “see” but this seeing is always limited and hearing leads us to follow in faith.

 

Conclusion

 

I have underscored a number of problems with modern worldview thinking. I have concluded by revealing how this thinking can create real dangers for thoughtful Christians. Having said this I still believe worldview thinking is important and useful. It emphasizes that Christian faith includes a cognitive aspect. I believe this is what is desperately needed in an age when thinking and reflecting is in such short supply.

 

Professor A. M. Wolters insightful comments add a fitting conclusion to my series: “The worldview aspect of the Christian religion does not define its essence, but focuses on one of its features—a feature which can be crucially important for certain purposes, not least apologetic purposes” (cf. New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics, 762). 

Back to Top

Responses

Currently there are no responses.

 

Return to topics Return to articles
Back to Top

Respond to This Article

Form Authentication: 

Refresh the page if  
image does not appear  

Please enter the form validation code
you see displayed above.



Your Information:

Name:

 

Email Address:

URL:

Respond to This Article:

Your comments will be reviewed and either approved or denied publication.

 

Back to Top

Navigation Key

 Return to topics
 Return to articles 
 Read article with responses 
 Respond to this article