Upload
bogs1212
View
812
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
WORlOVlfWS OVfR ~Offff AT STARBU~KS
WH EN CHR ISTIANS SEE A ROOK ahout world views, they automatically
assume it is about apologetics-a defense of the ChriHian faith. That
assumption is correct for this book as weB, but this is apologetics with
an important twist . Like: oth er w orldview books, w e: attem pt to demon
strate the: inadequacie~ of non-Christ ian thought systems or life orien
Tations, and to convince readers that Christian it ~· offen something bet
ter. But that is not our only goal, and perhaps it is not even our primary
purpose . The twist is that this apologetics book also aims to provoke
Christians to adopt a Christian world view. Too often, we assume that
non-Christian worldviews stay safely on the other side of the chu rch
door. A s you will see below, we believe that th is is far from the ease. In
fact, much of this book grows out of ou r own self-reflection to isolate
areas where hidden worldviews, alien to Christianity, have crept into
our thoughts and lifestyles.
T he theory that Christians arc largely immune to the influe nce of
non-Christian thought structures is often unconsciously perpetuated
c ~ ightod m3~
12
by worldview book. that identify "theistic existentialism . postffiodern
deconstrllcrionism, M arxism or similar ph ilosophical systems as C h ris
tianity's main comper;rorj. These worldviews are, to be sure, .onlr.>ry
10 " Christian "iew of the world in fundamemal ways, and it ;s com
ple tely proper to frame an imellecrual response to them. Howevu,
stopping here has Iwo important limitat ions. First, somewhere along
the line, Chris t ians howe bought into t he idea Ihat philo,ophie~ born
and perpetuated in " niv.roilin topn:,em the greatc>! challenge to a
Chri,t ian worldvie",. \V. bdi.". that i . wrong-headed. How many
people do you know who are locked in deep conflict ovcr whethu to
become an mheist ic existentialist o r a Chri,tian? H ow man\' commit
ted 1I-hrxi51s do you run into on a daily basis? T he reality is that we
don't r<'ally encounte r mass ive hcrd~ of people entked by the thought
'ystems found in a typical ",orldview hook.
T he second limitation of mo", world,·ie", book. i. t hm they let
Christian readers off the hook too ea.ily. After reading such books ,
they fre<I'lently will conchlde ,hatth. author is correct "bout the defi
ciencies of competing idea~ and the sufficiency ofChr ist i;m idea,. Be
cause of thi. agr.ement, Chri.tian. often further conclude thnt their
faith remain. lm{>~inted by contrary worldvicw,. Thi, create, a danger
ous situation if the real compet ition for the heart< and mind. ofChri.
tian. and non-Ch ri. tians alike doc. nOt spring from the academy, where
the world,·iew. arc dearly formubted and expressed. \Vh", if the real
competit ion come ' from worldvicw. We do nM Se C al all, eVen if they
su rround us?
W e believe Ihi. i.the ,itllation. 11 i. not Ih~ world view. that begin a,
theories or intellectual systems that mold the live. and beliefs of 100",
peopic. Instead, the most powerful infllenee. cOme from worldv;ew!
that emerge fro m culture. They arc "II around us, but are s(> dee ply em
bedded in culture thaI we don't sec them. In olher word" these world
views ,lfe hidden in piain . ight. \.y~ wi ll o<;casionally call1h~m "lived
world,·iew.w
because we "r. mOre l ikcl,· to "hsorb Ihem thro ugh cu h ur~1
CO ll1ad than adopt them through ~ rational c\·" lualion of compcling
the"rie ~ . These lind w"rld\";ew! arc l'opllhir philos<>phits of life Ih"l
h~\"e few inlclkctual proponents bot ,",,$t nUlTl be ," of 1'1'~~(il;one rs .
,
13
The eight belief systems we identify as hidden wo rldv iews-individ
ualism, consumerism, nat ional ism, moral relat ivism, naturalism, the
ew A ge , pos rmodern rribj,l ism and s:.livat ion by therapy-fit this
model. This is certainly not an exhaust ive list,1 bur they arc among th e
m ost pervasive life-shaping perspectives in North American cu lture. Tf
YOll obse rve ca refully, yo u hear and see them everywhere-in offices ,
dorm ito ries, Internet chat rooms and ovcr-coffce-at-Starbucks convcr
satiol1S. l\1o rcovcr. they arc not limited to secular venues. Bcc:'lU SC of
their stealthy nature, these world views find their way behind the church
doors, m ixed in with Christ ian ideas and sometimes identified as
Christian positions.
This accounts fo r the "apologetic rwist" mentioned at the beginning
of the book. Many C hri stians have imported chunks of these world
views w ithout being aware of it. This is difficult to avoid because they
arc embedded throughout North American culture. M oreover, because
we do not encounter them as intellectual system s, they usually fly under
the radar of consc ious thought. Thus, their power oVer liS is increased
s ince we are often unaware of how they shape our life and ideas. In
short, no one is immune from the influence of these pe rspect ives . They
a re very real competitors with Christian ity, and they stake their claim
on the lives of C hri stians and nonbelieve rs alike.
Because we wiJi exam ine world views that are absorbed through cu l
t ure rather than adopted through rational appraisa l, the structure and
approach of th is book w ill differ from many oth ers in the "worldview"
category. M ost world view books proceed by invest igating the writ ings
of those who propose intcllectu ::d thought systems, and then they un
dertttkc a tho rough evaluation o f the coherence of these ideas. This
m akes perfect sense when examining worldviews that o riginate as the
o retical systems. H owever, the ove r-coffee-at- Starbucks worldviews
we examine do not have this sort of starting point. They m ay indeed
h ave philosophical and academic con nections or origins, but by the
'You mighl note. for el:ample, that we do nO! address the major world religions, which certa inly fir the e ~l egory ofli l'ed worldviews. \Ve h:we nm examined Ihese for two reasons. Fits!, we wanl lO foc us On Ihe North AmericB tI cu ll ur:,l cOluext. a rid eve n Ihough the influence of other religion. is growing here, we do nOt believc their imp;lcl is ns direct as those wc have selected. Second, ;Idd~,sing this arc:1 in an :.tdeq uatc m;lnncr would double rhc lengTh of this book.
14 HID DEN \VO IU.DV TEW S
time these ideas trickle down to popular American culture, they man
ifest themselves in different 'ways. For example, what we call posrmod
ern tribalism has roots in pos tmodern phi losophy, as the name implies,
but it is not the same as post modern philosophy. Capitalist econom ic
theory has influenced both consumerism and individu alism, two
worldviews examined later in this book. h is a mistake, however, to
equate either with capital ism o r, for that m:l.tter, to assume that capi
talism is the only influcI1cC on these systems. Thus, we will examine
worldvicws in their everyd ay express ion, no t their more purified theo
ret ical forms, because that is how most people experience them and are
drawn under their influence. (This also, by the: way, cms down sig
nificantly on the number of footnotes.)
Our second departure from the traditional model is to approach
worldviews as more than just intellectual sys tems. Some reade rs wi1i
take us to task for this because they define worldview as an intentional
attempt to frame answe rs to the deepest quest ions in life. Such attempts
consc iously begin with the aim of di rectly addressing questions about
G od, real ity, knowledge, goodness, human n ature and other founda
tional questions. M ost of the li\'ed worldviews we will examine do not
start here . Never theless, as we will see, they imply answers to all of the
questions that theoret ical worldviews attempt to address. Jo.10reover,
the effect of our lived worldviews is the same sought by their theoretical
cousins. They ttll us what we should love or despise , what is valuable or
unimportant, and what is good or evil. All worldviews offer definitions
of the fundamental human problem and how we might fix it. \,yhen
you ge t right down to it, every worldview attempts to answer the ques
tion "What mu st we do to be saved?" Regardless of whether it comes to
us as a theoretical construct or is soaked tip by osmosis from culture,
our worldview will have a deep imp:lct on how we view our universe,
ourselves and OlLr act ions.
Because these hidden world views do what theoretical worldviews do
(propose answers to fundamental guesrions and shape our lives) , we do
not hesitate to use the term worldview to describe the systems in this
book. VVhile we do not reject the validity of the intentiona l, rationa l
exam ination of these questions, we think it stops too soon. The real ity
15
oflife is that, while humans are rational beings, we are not just rat ional
beings. The vast majority of liS do not commit to a worldview by initiat
ing a purely intellectual compari son of compet ing ph ilosoph ies and
choosing what appea rs to be the most coherent one. W e don't just think
our way into worldviews, we experienu them.
For most of us, our worldviews come to li S more like a story or faith
commitment rather than a system of ideas we select among a buffet of
intel lectual options. h is certainly the case that we arc able to ext ract
ideas that characterize each w orldview, and this will occupy a signifi
cant amou nt of O Uf attention in each chapter. Nevertheless, we want to
be aware that, for most of li S, wo rldviews are not primarily systems of
interl inked ideas and beliefs, but they are experienced, :tbso rbed and
expressed in the midst o f life .
REAl-L IFE. WHOL E- LIFE WORLOVIEWS
If what we have sa id so far m akes sense, it means that the entire
wo rldview ente rprise is a lot messier than is often implied by many
books on the top ic. ) :tmes Si re's underst:tnding of wo rldview helps il
lumin::ne some re:tsons behind thi s messiness. As he defines it, "A
worldview is 3. commitment, ::1 fundamental or ientation of the heart,
that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppos itions (assump
tions which may be true, partially tfue or entirely false) which we
ho ld (consc io usly o r subco nsc iously, consistently or incon sistently)
:tbou t the b:ts ic constitution of re ality, and that provides the founda
tion o n which we live and move and have o ur being."2 We will break
Sire's definition down into pieces slowly, hut it is important fro m the
beginning to cl arify what he means by hearl. Our culture tends to
speak of the heart in reference to feelings o r emotions. Sire reminds
us, however, th at the biblical concept o f heart is much richer than
this. It includes the emotions, but also encompasses wisdom, desire
and will, sp irituality and intellect. In sho rt, the heart is, "the central
defining element of the human person."l
IJam~5 Sire, No1millg Ihr E/tpho/ll: lI'()rld'fJi~ :1J us iI C()/lup! (Do .... ners Gral· ... IlL: ImerV:trsity Preu, 2004), p. 122.
lIbid., p. 124.
16 H IDDEN \VO IU.DV TE WS
Equating heart with the entire person helps us idenrify one impor
tant factor that contributes to real-lite worldview mess iness . W orld
views arc not just cognitive const ructs in which the relative amo unts o f
truth and crror included in them determine the relative success o r
failure of our lives . Real human beings, beings with "heart," arc multi
dimensional; our lives possess physical , economic, psycholog ica l, po
litical, spiritual, soc ial and intellectual facets. This is why we intuit ively
recognize that a person with a clear and coherent grasp o f intellectual
truth still lives a less than complete life if they arc economically careless
or a psychological basket case (or, we would add, spir itually indiffer
ent). To isolate the intellectual component as the exclu sive concern o f
worldview formation, as m any world view books do, is reductionistic. It
co ndenses a real multidimensional person to a sing le aspect of hi s or her
actua l existence. T o be sure, our intellect is important, but if taken in
isolation it fails to put complete and real peo ple in the picture.
The charge of reductio nism is one you will hear frequently th rough
our rhe following chapters because the strength of each worldview we
exa mine also turns out to be its "Achilles' hed" when that insight is
absolutized. C onsumerism, for example, correctly reminds us that we
are finite beings who perish unless we consume at least some of ou r
environment's resources. Consumerisn1's big mistake, however, is that
it def ines us solely as physical, consuming beings. Stated otherwise,
consumerism is a reductionistic worldview because it absolutizes our
physical and economic dimensions and g ives insufficient attention to
remaining aspects of human existence. O th er worldviews, in turn, ab
soluti ze some other h cet of our experience to the exclusion of others.
A s you mtty anticipate, then, part o f ou r arg ument is t hat C hristian
ity avo ids and co rrect s the reduction isms of these competing system s
and offe rs a full -orbed ;'tccollnt of huma n life. Thus, we will find much
that we can consent to and learn from within non~Chri stia n world
views. At the same time, we m",int",in that allY perspective that fails to
do justice to every G od-created dimension of human life canno t be
described as a Christian worldview. To put it in the language of Sire's
defmition , if "heart" refers to the whole person , w e mus t pursue a
wholehearted worldvi ew that avo ids reduct ionism.
Ii
WORLOVI EWS AS ST ORY
If Sire's definition of worldview as a " h eart orient ation," a set of com
m itments that encompasses the ent ire person, reveals one factor that
c1uffers up our task, his suggestion that worldviews can be told as a
stOfY di scloses :l second messy dement in our appro :l.ch. The usu:tl
mode of operation in worldvicw books is to compare and eva luate
propositional system s, which because they are system s, are neat and
orderly. Sto ries , o n the o ther hand, arc: no t guite as tidy. H owever, w e
bdicvt! that the concept of story as a metaphor for worldvicw is mo rc:
t rue- to- life than a recital of proposit ions that one believes to be tflU::,
for two reasons.
The first reason we prefer the concept o f worldview as story is that
we believe that our knowledge of God is revealed in a manner that is
more analogous to a narrative than a set o f propos itions. It does n't take
a deep investigation of Scripture to discover that it is not written as a
logically constructed, tightly interconnected and cross-referenced sys
tem o f truthful propositions. We may certainly be able to distill from
the Bible sll ch a system, but it docs not come packaged in that way.
Instead, as we will develop in chapter ten, Scripture's overall structure
resembles an epic story stretching from creation to hi story's COllSUln
mation, encompassing smaller stories of C od's inrcraction with people
over a broad span of years and cultural contexts . This bigger na rrative
of G od's involvement with us, what we will Gtll "God's story," provides
the foundation on which we attempt to di sce rn a Christian worldvicw
and the broad horizon against which we all live our individuallives (or
stories).
Second, in add ition to G od's revelat ion coming in a manner similar
to story, our worJdvicws unfold in a storylikc manner. C onsider how we
come to know others. Vve do no t di scover who someone really is byask
ing for a set of proposirions they assent to , although this may playa
part. Instead , we gain insight into a person's identity by learning where
the), come from , key life experiences, what they love, what sorts of re
lat ionships they have and a multitude of o ther storylike features. While
we may talk about these matters in propos itional terms, even these
propositions are products of our expe riences. Thus, while propositional
18 H IDDEN \VO IU.DVTEWS
belie fs are an essentia l aspect of worldview examinat ion, these spring
from the messy process that we will ca ll "OliT sto ry."
OUR STORY ANO WORl OVI EW FORMAT ION
At birth, we arrive in a world filled with competing visions of pu rpose,
truth and goodness, and we experience them in a mulritude of ways.
W orld views come at us, not as fully-formed systems of interrelated
ideas, but in bits and pieces. We encounter them through national her
itage, religion, fam ily influence, the educat ional system, peer g roups ,
various med ia and countl ess additional sources. They are transmitted
by these sources through such d ive rse fo rms as mu sic, polit ical speeches,
advert ising, unsolicited adv ice from friend s o r family and, yes, via our
coffee-at-Sta rbucks conversations. And sometimes what is not sa id ex
plicitly in these different modes of communication shapes our world
views as much as wh at is sa id . In short, t hese influences arc so pervasive
throughout cultu re that we may not even sec them at all.
M oreover, world view for mation , like a story, is not a st:uic affair.
Every good narr:\tive, including our own, has a dy namic quality. Like
stories, lives have a beginning, a middle and an ending that include
spec ific contexts, un ique characters, plot twists, conflic ts or crises,
alo ng with resolut ions that set up the next episode. A s a resu lt, even
when the fundamental ou tl ines of our world view hold up over a li fe
time, the detail s go through modificat ions based on our psychologica l
development , new events or rel ationships, exposure to new ideas o r a
num ber of other factors.
A s the story unfolds, however, the sequence, actors and plot develop
ment are only the most visible features. In rea lity, our stories :ire struc
tured, in large part. by fo rces that reside beneath the surface. My actions
manifest the subterranean influence of my sel f-understanding, my convic
tions and my values. Things that happen to me and around me, many of
them beyond my immediate control, provide the setting for my story.
Nevertheless, what occurs in the various chapters, what my character be
comes, is also molded by what I believe and value. Thus, in t.h e following
diagram we w ill trace the components of our story, our ·worldview, as they
radiate from our interior stories toward ex ternal express ion and action.
Sia n
Idend! II
COIl\'i.:riolls
ValutsiElhics
!\'loralsiActions
SroTy: 1'1...: cemral narr:uillC of ou r life
IdeOTi l~': How we ~e ourstlvts "od prrsenr our~I"u ro others
Com-iel io",: ThoK beliefs that mak" up how Tralltyworks for us
Valut'siEdlics: \<Vh(l{ we bel ieve we sho uld do a nd wn:lt we !:Ike to be' Ollr highest pr iorilies
.Morals/Act ions: TIle re:llm o f d oing lhul indudcs all of o ur activ ities
Figure 1. Tra n~formati on mDdtl (developed by Dr. S teve Gree n)
STORY: MOV IN G TOWARD ACTION
19
In the opening scene of Fiddler 011 the Roof, Tevye sa.ys that, because of
tradit ion, "everyone knows who he is ," That is what our story does; it
gives us an ident ity. The ident ity level of our being encompasses such
th ings as our concept of success o r whe re we believe we fit into the scheme
of things. In the myri ad of relationships-with G od, myself, others and
the physical world- my story provides an interpretive grid that expresses
the importance and value of the various "others" I encounter. If my iden
tity is invested in fi na ncial well-being rather that' in friendsh ips, J may
not th ink twice about a long-distal,ce relocation when offe red the dream
job with a fat raise, even ifit means leaving long-term friendsh ips. H ow-
20 H I D DEN \VO IU.DV TE WS
ever, if my identity has been closely connected with Iny job starus and
financial well-being for some rime, it is unlikely that I will have many
real friendships to consider when the job offer comes. The definition o f
success within a consumerist worldview will be much different from
someone whose story emphasizes enduring relationships.
Closely intertwined with ollr identity is what we call our conv Ic
ti ons. Our convictions might be viewed as a di stillation o f ou r story as
it is filtered through our sense of identity into a system of propos itions
that forms the ideological framework for our story. These convictio ns
play a central role in O tlf story becau se we believe them to be true de
script ions of what Sire's definitio n refers to as "the basic constitution o f
reality." They express ollr ideas abo ut what the whole world is like, how
it works, the means by which we understand it p roperly, and what its
purpose is .
These conviction s arc vital because they describe how we underst and
and interpret the world . It is the m eans by which we articulate our
worldview. We can illustrate this by contrasting the convictions o f a
sc ient ific naturalis t with a Christian thei st . A s we will see below, sc i
entific naturalism's centtal convictions arg ue that the world is a closed
system, co ntaining nothing more than physical components whose in
teractions arc detetm.ined by ironclad, absolute laws. This rules out the
existence of any nonphysical realit y, G od included. By contrast, the
Christian theist views the world as open to the activity a fG od. For the
theist , then, the laws that govern nature o rig inate fro m G od and pro
vide an accurnte descripti on of physical interactions within creation.
However, since thcse laws arc c reations o f G od, they arc not absolute.
Realities exist that transcend such laws.
Thus, the stories behind a naturalist's and a theist's convictions dif
fer radic;llly. Both m ay see the same facts, but the convictions that shape
their respective interpretations of these facts are quite different. In fact,
it is not an overstatement to say that a naturalist and a theist cou ld live
in the same house and, at the same time, inhabit two entirely different
univer ses. What exists {and does not ('xist) in my universe, the means
by which it is known m ost accurately, my place in this universe , and a
host of other questio ns will have answ ers that a re molded by my conv ic-
21
tions. I f! change my convictions, my world, at least as I experience it,
changes with them,
Convictional bel iefs about the nature of reality and how that real
ity is known radiate outward co shape our eth ics (what we believe we
should or should no t do) and values (what we take to be priorities).
What is the good or right way to live? vVhich mor;).1 principles, if any,
are nonnegot iable? '¥hich :lrc relative or conditional? Which values
should mark the pr ior ities that sh ape who we arc :md how we usc o ur
time? To illustrate, we freq uently say that we do not have enough time
for something. In reality, these statements are rarely true. If we are
honest, "not enough time" can almost always be translated as, "I did
not do that because it was not a high prio rity." Someone committed to
an individu :.d istic wo rldview will find t ime fo r different things than
we wou ld see on a ew Ager's schedule. S imilarly, the highest ethical
loyalties of a nationalist wm vary significantly from those of a com
mitted Christian.
Finally, ou r ethics shapes ou r actions. This is the realm of doing that
includes activities from our vot ing p:l.tterns to our use o f money to the
time we spend with family, and everything in between. This is the part
of our stories that is most evident to those around us, and it is certainly
how most people start to learn what we think of ourselves, what ethical
principles we embrace, and what convict ions govern our lives. In short,
our behaviors arc the stage on which we play out our sto ries.
Now that we have reached the o uter byer of ollr stories, two things
should become evident as we think about the rdatio nsh ip between our
actions, which fo rm the m ore public face t o f our lives, and the interior,
more private aspects of our stories. The fi rst was hinted at above; our
actions do not exist in a vacuum , disconnected from other aspects of
life. There is, as the saying goes, much more to us than meets the eye.
Second, it seems clear that our visible act ions are not always consistent
with those other p~trts of o ur lives that don't "meet the eye." \ "'hat I do
is not always congruent with what 1 believe. In fact , an important
premise of this book is that what we believe, ual/ybelieve, i" not always
congruent with what we say we believe or think we want to believe.
One can , for example, profess Christianity and live like an individua\-
22 H I D DEN \VO IU.DV TE WS
isr. We probably ought to fix that, and a careful evaluation o f our world
view can be an important part of that fix.
A CON GR UENT STOR Y
Several years ago a fa scinating story hit the new s about a seventy-three
year-old Catholic woman, E leanor Boyer, who had won the New Jersey
State lotte ry. After federal and state taxes were deducted, she had over
eigh t million dollars left. We don't know your financial situation, but
this is a sum sufficient to capture our attention. So is the amount o f
money th is wo man gave away. In fac t , she gave it all away-ro her
church and to organ izatio ns in h er town that helped people in need.
When the reporter asked her why she donated all the winnings, her
respo nse was "God takes ca re of me."
I fwe would pas te our own pictu re into rhi s sto ry, we quick ly recog
nize how difficult it is to bring congruity to our worldview.l\1any peo
ple arc quick to say that G od w ill provide for their needs or that it
would be wrong to spend money extravagan tly when it could provide
life-saving relief to people in dire need . Yet ou r actions, if we would
receive an unexpected, after-tax eight-million-doHar windfa ll, may not
have as much congruency with statements made about our convictions
before we hit the jackpot as t hose o f the woman above. This example,
and m illions o f ot hers we could create, reminds us of t he vast difference
between what we call conjim ional beliefs, ideas that remain exclu sively
on the intellectual level, and cOllviclional beliefs, belief.<; that are re
flected in our actio ns .
C areful worldview examination requires that we constantly hold up
our convictions against the mirror of our actions to sec where our con
fessional beliefs arc incongruous w ith our convictional beliefs . C hris
tians often find it mllch easier to talk a good game by reciting the right
creeds and embracing the proper doctrinal statements than to actually
live by the pr inciples embodied in them. But Christians arc not the o nly
people susceptible to incongruity (or hypocr isy, if you prefer that word).
In extreme circumstances , scientific n aturalists may fmd themselves in
prayer to G od. A moral relativist may live as if universa l m oral standards
do exist. Regardless of one's worldview, it is important to integrate what
23
we:: say we believe :lnd what we actually do. This is not possible unless we
live reflectively, carefu lly examining both our ideas and actions to see if they arc in sync. That is, then, one of our main tas ks in this book.
A second reaso n to subject various world views to rigorous examina
tion brings l1 S back to the more traditiona l apologeti c task of contrast
ing a C hristian worldview with competing id eas. Christ ians wi ll agree
tha t it is o ften difficult to live a life that is consistent with o ur conv ic
tions. At the same time, they should also agree th at (1) the ccntr:l1
convict iom of a C hristian world view are consistent with each other and
(2) acti ng in accordance with C hristian convict ions yields good resu lts
in our lives. W e don't believe that either is the case with the competing
world views we exam ine in this book. For example, a bed rock belief for
moral relativ ism is that no uni versally valid moral principles ex ist.
H owever, a second relativist conviction is that we should be to ler:mt of
those 'whose moral views differ from ours. The glaring contrad iction
h ere is that the demand of tolerance by all and for all is a moral stan
dard that is inconsistent with the relativist's claim that no universal
moral standards exist. Th is is certai n ly in tens ion with (I ) above, which
argues that a worldview should be internally consistent.
1\10ral relativism also runs afoul of (2 ), which says that living out
one's worldview sh ould lead to beneficial results. We will argue that
moral relativ ists really don't live out the fi rst conviction (no universal
mora l principles exist), and it is a good th ing they don't. T he logical
outcome of th is convict ion is dog-eat-dog chaos, not exac tly the type of
benefic ial resu lt we look for in a good world view. In sum , then , we
encourage reflection on a ~er ies of worldviews because it can reveal
their logica l o r practical flaws, and hopefu lly help us avoid them.
Our third reason for vigilance about worldview incongruities is spe
cific to oll r ta sk of helping Christians develop a C hrist ian worldview.
Without retl ection, ideas contrary to a C hristian worldview creep into
our convictional beliefs, and we might not even realize it. The problem
here is that, wh ile confessional bdiefs exist on the conscious level
(which must be the case if we "confess" them), many of our conv ict ionai
bel iefs work on the subconscious level, as Sire's world view definition
rem inds us. W e m ay not be aware of what our t rue convict ions are, but
24 HID DEN \VOIU.DVTEWS
that does not make them less real or determinative for our lives. Thus,
a careful examination of postmodern tribalism , for example, might re
veal arC:lS where Christians have allowed un-Chr istian ideas about race,
gender or national superiority to infiltrate their worldvicw. Or, as il
lustrated above, considering how we might handle an unforeseen cash
windfall might show us that, despite o ur claims to worship God alone,
we have become mammon-worshiping consumer ists. Therefore, Ch ri s
tians need to learn what these competing storic s sa)'. In doing so , we
can discover how our convictions have been shaped by worldviews that
are incompatible with what we want to bel ieve. Without carefu l, con
sciolls reflection, our Christian story can easily be hijacked by al ien
stories that take our lives in directions we don't want to go , B ecause
what we are not conscious of can hurt us, it is important to take an in
ventorv of ou r true convictions,
Each of the world views in this book is part of the cultural air we
breathe, M oreover, each of these worldviews has the power to distort
our Christiansrory, a power that grows in proport ion to o ur lack o f
:\wareness o f its influence, Paul reminds liS of this in R omans 12:2
when he states, "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this
world." Aioll, the word translated as "'world," is more literally translated
"age." The "pattern of this age" refers ro the dominant ways o f think
ing, the stories , that shape the world arou nd us. Paul is not, therefore,
ta lking abollt avoiding any part icular kind of activities. H e warns us
against a deeper, more pervasive danger, t he danger o f conforming to a
story that differs from G od's story for us.
TR ANS FORMATION TO GOO'S STORY
Paul's antidote to conformity to the "patterns of this age" is found in the
last part of the verse: "but be transformed by the renewing of your
mind. Then you will be able to te st and approve what G od's will is-his
good, pleasing and perfect wil!." Instead of conforming to the stories of
our age, Paul says that we need to be transformed to G od 's story, G od 's
"good, pleasing and pedect w ilL" This raises a point that is too o ften
fo rgotten. The wocldvicw of:\ Christ ian, if it is to remain a Christi an
worldview, needs to be set \vith in G od's sto ry.
26 HID DEN \VO IU.D VTEW S
but needs to occur within the contex t of a community. ]n fact, this book
itself was birthed out of d iscussions on these matters within adult Bible
classes and unive rsity discipleship g roups. Without all three dements
mento ri ng, reflective fellowship and worldvic:w formation- the c:ver
present non-Christian worldviews begin to work theif corrosive effects
on ollr lives.
I n the following chapte rs, we will exam ine eight sto rics, widespread
within American culture, that compete with a Christian worldvic\\'.
They are, to so me ex tent, artific ial constructio ns; probably no person
alive exemplifies any of t hese types in a pure form. These influences, as
we have said, com e at li S in fragments from muhiple directions, and
most real lives are a composite of these forces. Chr ist ians are not ex
empt from this. and this premise stands at the heart o f thi s book. Our
worldview, if we live an unexamined life, can be adulte rated by h idden
dements that dilute and corrupt it.
As we evaluate these cornpeting stories, we will focus heavily on the
character istic convictions of each worldview. This intellectual compo
nent is necessary becausc, as we havc seen above, our convictions playa
central role in ollr world views. H owever, it will be impor tant to re
member that the stakes are much higher than simply a co ntest about
which ideology comes out the winner. Worldviews are ultimately about
full -orbed . multid imensio nal, rea l human lives , and how we can get the
most from them. In short, as we will say often in the following chap
ters , all worldviews are ultimately ahou t salvation, even if they don't use
that \1ocabulary.
The Christian worldview places an extremely high value on life,
which is the reason it is so deeply interested in salvation. l flife is valu
able, it makes sense to examine the stories that shape our lives to make
certain we experience the abundance God desires for them. To this
end. we will close the book with two chapters about Christian world
views. The first (chapter ten ) outlines the contours of a Christ ian
worldview in a narrative form and explores places where it differs fro m
the others examined in this tex t. Our fina,1 chapter (chapter eleven)
explores the question of how o ne develops and nurtures a real-life,
whole-life worldv iew.
25
Paul clearly indicates that the kind of transformation that aligns us
with G od's story has to impact our minds. By this, however, he is no t
just speaking of a collection of confess ional beliefs. As we have seen,
what we claim to believe does not always transfo rm our lives. Instead,
the renewal of our minds envisions a transformation of our whole
beings- our intellects, wills, desires, relationships and spirituality (and
thu s encompasses what Sire ea rlier refers to as "heart"). Paul 's call for a
rcncw:ll of the mind st :lnds in contrast to most Christian preach ing and
teaching , which is focused on changing the outermost circle of our
story- the behavioral level. VI/hile the actions of the Christian should
undergo a transformative process, changing behaviors alone is no t
transformation. It attacks the symptoms rather than the disease. ] n the
end, behavioral change is a pale counterfeit of:l whole-person transfor
mation that works from the mind outward.
Transformation that docs not involve the mind comes at a h igh cost.
Steve Garber's book The Fabric a/Faithf ulness asked a probing question:
"Why do some Christians leave college, and five to ten years later they
have also left Christianity? Why do o the r C h ristians complete college
and continue to integrate their Christian faith with a new set of life
circumstances?" His findings were fascinating. Without exception,
those 'who successfully integrated fa ith with life followed three prac
tices . They developed a relat ionship with a mentor who pract iced an
act ive Christian life . Second, they met regularly with peers who were
deeply committed to living out their Christianity. Finally, they had
developed a C hristian worldview sufficient to meet the challenges of
the competing worldviews they encountered a fte r leaving college.
Our book's eye is obviou sly foclIsed on the third critical element that
Garber identifies. ' '''hen our minds do not undergo continuing trans
formation through reflection on om entire life, om stori es inevitably
deviate from G od's plotline. H owever, development of a Christian
worldvic::w sufficient to meet the challenges of the competing world
views is not unrelated to the first two factors noted by Garber. Our
relation ships frame the context of our stories, and it is with in the ac
countability of such relationships that we align our stories to G od's
story. Our examination oflife should not just be an individual endeavor
28 HID DEN \VO IU.DV TEW S
celebrates the individu al who creates his o r her own unique path. Thus,
like the other lived worldviews in this book, individualism does not re
ally find its or igins in:.m intellectual system, but as a type of story about
who we should be.
Perhaps the best analysis of American individualism today is found
in the book Habits 0/ thl! HenrI written by Robert Bellah and his col-
1t:agucs. Habits refers to two distinct types of individual ism, both com
mon in Amer ican culture. The first form is "utilitarian individu:tlism."
Utilitarian individualism has been a dominant force in America since
its founding and has often fueled the quest fo r the "American Dream."
This version of individualism focu ses on personal achievement and ma
terial success, and believes that the social good automatically follows
from the individual pursuit of one's own interests. Thus, the utilitarian
ind ividualism does no t necessa rily reject the structures and rules of so
ciety. I nstead, they arc viewed primarily as guidel ines or tools that help
the individua l work efficiently within the system. In other words, there
is a willingness to accept certain restr ictions on personal behavior, such
as laws prohibiting bribery, because a system that requires honest busi
ness deal ings ultimately benefits those who work hard.
The second fo rm Bellah identifies, "expressive individualism," is a
reaction to the limitations of utilitarian individualism. While the latter
generally advises that we pursue individual success by con formity to the
rules and common practices of soc iety, expressive individll :l lism wor
ships the freed om to express our lIni'lueness against constraints and
conventions. Because rules and social conventions encourage confor
mity, they arc viewed as a threat to personal expression :md individual
ity. The danger is that we will be absorbed into the herd. Thus, libera
tion and fulfi llment are central themes in expressive individualism and
find articulation in statements like "J need to be free to be me." Free
dom becomes the rationale for reducing any responsibilities perceived
as limitations to my personal autonomy o r fu lfillment, whether those
responsibilities are social, moral, relig ious or fami ly duties. Where util
itarian ind ividuali sm sees our social systems as a means for attaining
our individual goals, express ive individualism genera lly views these
system s as obstacles to individual freedom.