Why the Angst?
Recent conversations in the larger evangelical world have caused me to think a great deal about how Christians should faithfully interact with competing worldviews. It is no surprise that my own notions of how to go about this are not shared by opponents of the Cross. However, it has also become apparent that some within what I would consider conservative and orthodox Bible-believing circles also operate from logical priors and instincts that differ from mine. When I first noticed this theme, I began to wonder a few things.
What reflexes can explain this difference?
How are other Christians using terms differently than I do?
And finally, what is the nature of worldviews and how do they operate?
I genuinely consider what follows to represent an in-house interaction with fellow believers, none of whom I consider to be somehow unfaithful to Christ Jesus or his kingdom. Yet I have serious concerns about where some of these instincts and implicit commitments might end up. Important questions began to multiply and still seem to loom large.
What are the limits of proper contextualization?
How does one synthesize ideas without falling unintentionally into syncretism?
Is the Christian worldview a worldview at all?
How does the sufficiency of Scripture inform a healthy Christian interaction with competing worldviews?
I will likely provide insufficient answers to these questions due to my own limitations, but, as they saying goes, “to write well is to think clearly.” Therefore, I am writing my thoughts down in hopes of solidifying my thoughts and perhaps probing the truth of my own instincts.
A Matter of Instinct and Reflex
At this point, it might be helpful to lay out the principles that guide or even predict one's conclusions related to worldview analysis and synthesis. How much of a particular philosophy or theory can be incorporated into faithful Christian obedience? How one views the following controlling principles sheds a great deal of light on this question
Three Ways
In his massive six-volume work, God, Revelation, and Authority, Carl Henry reminds us that in the history of the church there have been essentially three ways believers have thought about the relationship between revelation and reason. They include the Tertillian way, the Augustinian way, and the Thomistic way.
The Tertullian Way
The astute observer of history will likely recall Tertullian's phrase "What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?" Such was typical of Tertullian's general suspicion of ideas arising outside Christianity. For him, Christian thought was on a plane totally separated from secular philosophy. While Henry noted that Tertullian also added "Seneca is often one of us" to balance out his rather hard line stance here, it is true that he gave little quarter to the notion of a Christian Philosophy.
The Augustinian Way
Standing between two extremes, the Augustinian way suggests that while the role of faith and revelation are necessarily prior, they are incomplete without reason. In this view, as Henry put it, revelation "supplies the framework and corrective for natural reason." Those who subscribe to this camp can allow for a "Christian Philosophy" when the terms are rightly understood to include theology as a legitimate category.
The Thomistic Way
Thomas Aquinas (or at least the path named for him) inverted the position of Augustine. Instead of faith being necessary for understanding, Thomas held that understanding made way for faith. As such, this view is much more at home with philosophical categories occupying a larger space in the discussion, at least in terms of establishing or justifying its categories.
A System or a Grid?
One predictor of how a believer will interact with worldviews and ideas from the larger culture seems to be whether that person implicitly (or explicitly) thinks of Christianity as a system or as a grid. The system folks see Christian truth as a body of logic. The emphasis for them rests on what that body of logic teaches and suggests.
Meanwhile, those who view Christian truth as primarily a grid feel a greater freedom to incorporate ideas from outside the faith so long as they can be shown to be Biblically compatible, somehow.
The Sufficiency of Scripture
Yet another issue in play is one's view of the sufficiency of Scripture. Some emphasize Scripture's sufficiency more narrowly, pointing to Scripture's usefulness in matters of salvation. These believers would be skeptical of those seeking to apply Scripture to broader realms of life simply because they don't believe Scripture ever presented itself as that kind of work.
Others, however, hold that Scripture proves to be sufficient in a broader arena. They would hold that the Bible does in fact present itself as a book sufficient for life in this world as God set it up. As such, for them attempts seeking to apply the Bible to all of life are warranted.
Cards on the Table
It's a virtue to attempt to posit your opponents' views in terms with which they would agree. Insofar as possible, I have attempted this honestly. I do, however, recognize the unique challenge of critiquing reflexes instead of stated beliefs. It’s quite simple to point out the error in a doctrinal statement that has shifted over the decades. It’s quite another task to tease out problematic instincts and worldview inconsistencies. If the reader doesn't align with either of the opposing views I presented in the sections above, it could be that the reader occupies a different space than those sketched. Further, it could be that the constraints of simplifying broad camps never really allow for adequate nuance. It could lastly be that I have failed in some way. Yet, it's important that I lay out my cards before I present my concerns.
I am a man of the Augustinian Way who largely apprehends of Christian truth as a system (so far as we can understand on this side of the veil) and who holds to a broad view of the sufficiency of Scripture. This entails a few things. From here, I will outline the points that either contribute to a healthy Christian worldview formulation (as I see it) or endanger the same.
Concerns
Of Revelation and Grids
It seems that a logical extension of the Christian doctrines of revelation and regeneration imply the exclusion of the Thomistic way. I recognize that far more learned believers have gone before me here and that I am risking oversimplification. Yet for the sake of remaining concise, the following seems apparent: We have in our doctrines of revelation and regeneration categories that fundamentally confound mainstream epistemological assumptions. Insofar as the conventional discipline of philosophy rejects the possibility of revelation, regeneration, and the new knowledge that attends the regenerated life, philosophy as such will be at odds with Christian theology. This means that we cannot fully submit a priori to the conventional philosophical categories as governing rules in the ways we speak and think.
Further, while attracted to certain tenets of the Tertullian way with its high regard for the nature of revelation, I am compelled to agree with Augustine that reason and truth are worthy pursuits of the believer equipped by revelation.
Yet I notice that some who on paper hold to the same high view of revelation as I do might (inadvertently?) jettison this commitment in a sense when assessing competing worldviews. I have noticed a propensity to treat Christian truth as a mere grid through which to evaluate other ideas. Let me try to explain. Christian doctrine represents both a system and a grid. The system has interconnected pieces (the assumptions and logic) that work together to create harmony. Removing a piece risks the breakdown of the system. Yet Christian truth is also like a grid. Much like the sieves given to kids at a gem mine attraction, when shaken the sand falls through the screen and larger rocks are left behind. Inside faithful Christianity, there seems to be two main instincts at play when thinking of Christian doctrine and when evaluating competing worldviews. Some emphasize the system and the importance of preserving all the components while others are interested in shaking ideas around in the grid and seeing what can be shown to “pass the test.”
It’s obvious that the body of logic we possess certainly has grid-like properties. We are encouraged in the scriptures to be discerning and to “test the spirits.” But it seems that the reflex of some is to treat the Christian worldview not as a worldview at all, but rather as a simple assessment tool by which we can determine which outside ideas can be faithfully incorporated into Christian thought. Indeed, when one approaches competing worldviews with a seeming at-homeness in terms of adopting any “compatible” ideas, I become suspicious. Some treat Christian doctrine as though it is no more than a rubric by which we can assess which cultural ideas we can imbibe in good conscience. But something about this default instinct just seems inappropriate in light of specific revelation and the sufficiency of Scripture. While it is difficult to quantify or explain, this fundamental instinct difference may represent the crux of the issue. Yes, we are to interpret outside ideas through the lens of Scripture, but for what purpose? Are we doing this interpretation in service to the assumption that we need what is out in the culture to supplement what we already have? One can quickly see the interwoven nature of sufficiency, revelation's role, and reflexes in how worldview synthesis functions.
I am a philosophical evangelical. One of the reasons I occupy this ground is because evangelicalism as a system is committed neither to Fundamentalism (retreating from the culture) or Liberalism (embracing the culture, in toto). Rather, evangelicals engage the culture. Yet my concerns above don’t fully answer the question of how Christians should interact with secular thought (because they so obviously should!). For my stab at this question, I turn to the topic of contextualization.
"Contextualization"
Perhaps it says something about my personality that I become nervous when I hear the word "contextualization." This nervousness arises, however, not because I dislike the idea; indeed, contextualization is fundamental to preaching, teaching, and engaging non-believers. My nervousness arises because I am often unsure if you mean by contextualization what I mean by contextualization. Let me explain.
I understand Contextualization to refer to the process by which believers make accessible Scriptural truth to those who are culturally, linguistically, or in some other way different from them. This is a worthy task and represents the bread and butter of missionaries working in settings urban, rural, oral, and aural. Yet I've noticed a creeping tendency to reverse the process of Contextualization in service to other ends.
Some seem to mean by "contextualization" taking out of culture ideas and putting them to use in enhancing the witness of Christianity. Do you see the difference? One looks to, say, a film quote for help in illustrating a Christian point. The other looks to the film quote and sees a helpful idea that might be synthesized into our worldview. The first is contextualization, the second sounds an awful lot like syncretism.
This distinction is incredibly important for me. The difference between these two notions of “contextualization” is the very reason why Paul can quote pagan philosophers in service of illustrating an already-Christian point. What Paul did not do, however, was to identify a foreign notion and determine that it should be added to our body of logic because of that idea’s supposed utility. In a word, illustration is not the same as incorporation.
Truth must be contextualized, but even this statement assumes the presence of an already-recognized truth, not that some truth claim must be discovered and subsequently incorporated.
Sufficiency, Revisited
A final instinct difference between various believers involves their practical application of the doctrine of sufficiency. I believe it is important to nail down what one really believes about the Bible before engaging in worldview analysis. If the Scriptures are true in all they affirm, it’s important to recognize on which issues the Scriptures are perspicuous. I will state my thesis this way: the Scriptures are most sufficient where the Scriptures are most perspicuous.
Here is the idea I am trying to sketch out: if the Bible is clear on an issue, the Bible is authoritative on that issue and obedience is demanded. However, if an issue is genuinely open-handed, less perspicuous (or simply not addressed), more charity is in order when it comes to differences of opinion.
This is particularly important in the arena of worldview analysis. Because I don’t believe the Bible intends to be particularly perspicuous on, say, economic theory, I don’t believe I can enforce a particular view on the members of my church. Certain principles may be drawn from Scripture using our God-given faculties of wisdom and logic. But one’s authority to speak “thus sayeth the Lord” is limited where Scripture is less perspicuous.
However, if the Bible addresses an issue in a perspicuous manner, our prerogatives are off the table.
This is why I say a wise interpreter of the social scene must determine up front what he or she believes about inerrancy, sufficiency, and perspicuity before engaging rival worldviews. If a competing worldview purports to offer answers on issues the Bible has been perspicuous about, what benefits could possibly be gleaned from entertaining the assumptions and incorporating the conclusions of that competing worldview? In short, the more perspicuous the Bible is on a given topic, the higher the risk we run of disobedience, pride, and outright rejection of God’s revelation when we seek to synthesize the conclusions offered by competing worldviews. When we engage in this synthesis on issues that are perspicuous in Scripture, we act as if God has not spoken on them.
How Worldviews Function
One salient irony is that those predisposed to over-emphasize the grid-like properties of Christian doctrine inadvertently allow competing worldviews to surreptitiously enact their inherent work of a system, only inside the gates this time! What do I mean by this? I mean to say that when a person considers Christianity to be simply (or largely) a lens/grid whereby one can discern which outside ideas can be welcomed into the gates, they misjudge the nature of worldviews altogether. And herein lies what I perceive to be great danger. Because all worldviews rest on assumptions, they are by nature themselves systems. As such, the person of the 'grid view' has totally disarmed himself by assuming wrongly about the nature of worldviews.
If worldviews are merely or mostly grids, then all are equal. Yet if one assumes his worldview is a grid but then unknowingly invites a system into his house, the system will soon take over. How? Simply because one cannot separate conclusions from the assumptions and logical steps that gave rise to the conclusions. It is incredibly difficult to adopt a tenet of a competing worldview as in friendly cooperation with the Christian body of logic without simultaneously adopting the assumptions that undergirded it its original secular system. While others may suggest that they can safely and with ease pull the useful sword out of the stone of assumptions and come away unscathed, I am not quite so bold. The sense of my own tendency to be deceived by attractive ideas is palpable. I have a personality that adopts new ideas slowly.
Moreover, it seems fair to me to point out that those who de-emphasize the body-of-logic nature of Christian thought necessarily telegraph to the rest of us that they believe the Scriptures are insufficient on certain issues. This is understandable in a sense because the Scriptures are indeed more and less perspicuous on different topics. However, the fact remains, when a person incorporates a notion originating outside Christian thought, they are implicitly communicating that they believe the Scriptures are not perspicuous enough on that particular topic. One perhaps anticipates lively Christian interaction and disagreement on ideas of economic theory and welfare policy. But what is to be done when large disagreement is found on issues where Scripture is more perspicuous, such as with, say, notions of justice and unity?
A Final Word
Some will claim I am making an anecdotal argument that gives quarter to the slippery slope fallacy. I don’t believe this charge is warranted if it can be shown that my argument on the nature of how worldviews operate is correct. But I've seen this process of idea adoption and subsequent worldview flip play out in the lives of real people. A few foreign tenets are accepted and before long, foreign assumptions begin to exact a metastatic toll on their formerly Christian worldview. It's worth noting that many from the once trendy and now defunct Emergent Church movement who presently hold to views that can only be described as apostate still consider themselves believers and wonder with incredulity "what's all the fuss about?" Others from the leadership of this once-attractive movement simply admit that they are “de-converted.” It strikes me in retrospect that many of us considered these men and women to be securely inside the fold while their novel tenets, laden with unbiblical assumptions, had begun to metastasize.
I am passionate about this conversation. We need to have this conversation in a deep and careful way. I am sure there is much I have missed in this brief overview of the terrain as I see it and I am quite confident I don't possess all the knowledge or communication skills required to carry this conversation to its most beneficial place. Yet this conversation should represent a salient topic in my minds of all believers because, as best I can tell, when dealing with worldviews and assumptions, the difference between synthesis and syncretism rests on a knife's edge.
Comments