Bad Worldview Thinking

Posted by J. Mark Bertrand
on Friday, February 17, 2006
|
Permalink

 

I've noticed an interesting trend among twenty-something thinking evangelicals, a tendency to snigger behind the hand whenever "worldviews" are mentioned. It reminds me of how my generation reacted when older Christians talked about end times portents or rock music. We were jaded. We knew better. The Bible, as far as we could tell, backed our skepticism more than our elders' certainties. When I was first exposed to worldview thinking -- a kind of Christian cultural critique that involves tracing back the philosophical assumptions that underlie cultural products -- it was exciting to me as, say, deconstruction. But then, I hadn't grown up with the idea of worldviews. I hadn't persevered through a thousand youth group lectures on the topic, or been encouraged to label everybody's -ism. These younger evangelicals have, and to them it is old hat. More importantly, it is inadequate to the task.

I don't share this sense of worldview thinking's inadequacy, but I do sympathize. In many ways, the worldview approach that has gone mainstream throughout evangelicalism deserves the sniggering. We have a lot of people without philosophical training using pseudo-philosophical language in an effort to reassure equally untrained laymen that their belief systems will stand up to scrutiny. A lot of simplistic scorecards are handed out so that unsophisticated young people can discern the "hidden agenda" of the various scary elites. Worldview thinking has been co-opted by the culture wars, so it's no wonder that people disenchanted with those wars are indifferent to worldviews, too.

When worldview analysis is properly applied to works of art, it operates as a kind of buttress to the moral argument for God's existence. The reader discovers "Christian" themes, assumptions and structures in the work of people whose mindset is anything but, and this raises the question why. Asking worldview questions is way to open up the work to deeper scrutiny. It ought to provide a fuller, richer experience of the work.

Instead, worldview critiques often function on the pass/fail level, like a bacteria filter which, applied to our entertainment, cleanses it of harmful influences. The worldview critic reduces what he reads to the level of theme, then gives an up or down vote on whether the distilled "meaning" of the work fits into the "biblical worldview." Unfortunately, this turns out to be a way not to engage with the work directly at all. Instead, the art is processed into a set of -isms already familiar to the critic, who then applies the standard responses to them. The whole process is depressing to anyone who actually enjoys and benefits from the complexities of art.

It's impossible to make my case in such a short note, but let me say this in conclusion. If you're one of those people whose eyes glaze over when the w-word is mentioned -- or worse, one of those people who uses it as a club to beat things you haven't fully grasped over the head -- then take a moment and consider whether there might be more to worldview thinking than you've previously suspected. Worldview isn't the be-all-and-end-all, but it is a valuable tool for the enjoyment of culture.