Worldviewism

Status
Not open for further replies.
zsmcd

zsmcd

Puritan Board Freshman
What is worldviewism?

"Morecraft, who has been a pastor in the RPCUS, here has written a massive and detailed, though not technical, commentary on the Larger Catechism. Such a work, which took 20 years in the making, is very welcome, though do note that Morecraft is a Theonomist and entrenched in Worldviewism, as is the publisher (American Vision). There are also some oversights in editing and proof-reading in the volumes that are not ideal."

https://reformedbooksonline.com/commentaries-on-the-westminster-confession-of-faith/#larger
 
Basically, it's a criticism not too well defined, but then neither do they often clearly define "worldview" who use it positively. Not everyone who uses the term "worldview" fits the critical label. Furthermore, "worldview" can be defined in a way that avoids the criticism.

The target of the criticism teaches that there is, to a greater or lesser degree, one, biblically-informed way of looking at the world, which (important addition) leads to the "biblically-correct" opinions. And those are invariably the opinions of those who claim they've got possession of that one, biblical worldview.

Don't agree with them? Well, I guess you aren't as "biblical" as they are. But they're fair; all you have to do is prove from the Bible that they have the wrong opinion; then they will change. Otherwise, they believe their opinions are all formed out of the Bible. Ergo, they have the RIGHT opinions.

And if you disagree (especially if you haven't even tried to use the Bible to form your, say, political opinions!) well then, why should they even listen to you?

A "worldviewer" (in the sense being criticized) generally adopts the "all facts are God's facts" outlook, but perhaps in an unhealthy way. Christian reality admits this: one plus one makes two; and we can rely on that knowledge because God--who revealed himself by indelible word in the Bible alone--is the one who assures the original and continuing validity of truth.

But one-plus-one is a revelation of nature, and accessible to all image-bearers, even those in full-tilt rebellion against the Creator. You don't need a Christian worldview to have possession of it. Not sure who coined the phrase, but we can say that unbelievers can count; they just can't account (in the philosophical sense) adequately for counting.

But a "worldviewer" might go further, to say that unbeliever's math is essentially faulty, because it is not grounded in the God of reality. Here's the problem: I can have a Christian's outlook, and be bad a math; and being a better Christian won't help me do math any better. Meanwhile the unbeliever can win the Nobel Prize and contribute to humanity's worldly progress, all while he denies God and holds together in his mind many incompatible things--all which combine to supply a "worldview" lens. He's just good at math.

Plus, a man can be all determined to get his "worldview" on literally everything from the Bible ("if I can't figure out the Bible's perspective, it must not be important!"); and, I daresay, hold together in his Christian-mind many incompatible things anyway. His effort to "correctly" view everything in the world comes ultimately to nothing. It's a real problem in certain segments of the Christian world today, that people are "baptizing" too many things.

"Taking over everything for Jesus" partakes equal parts of hubris, narcissism, and subjectivity. Politics gets an inordinate share of the effort. Who decided that was the most important thing? I'd say for these types, the Arts come second, along with Journalism. There's a trend there, and it's all about influence. Start with the attitude that Christians should have the greatest influence in society; adopt the attitude that Christianity in some important way has baptized or formed entirely your opinions; then aim at taking over the organs that shape the cultural mind.

People who think that sort of progressivism is part of Christian duty are "worldviewers." I answer, "Here's my duty: 'Make it your ambition... to live quietly,' 1Ths.4:11." But people who think they are doing God's Work tend to get resentful of "unmotivated" Christians, when the activist Christians don't get traction for their "superior" ideas. When their movement starts breaking up, it's time to blame the slackers.

Let me repeat: it's not every person who likes to think in "worldview" terms, who raises "worldview" to the level of a confessional commitment, who puts his version of activism on par with a true profession of faith. Some have a much milder case, might even make them a better Christian than before. They refrain from missionary zeal to convert another man to their worldview, content to see him converted to Christ. Let Christ orient his renewed mind.
 
There is a tendency among some Worldview advocates to reduce all of reality to a set of questions, and many "worldviewism" guys haven't really kept up on the literature, so the discussions are dated. For example, Kant's term weltanschauung means something closer to "world-intuition" than a "prism through which we view facts" (Heidegger, Basic Problems of Phenomenology).

Of course, everyone has a worldview, but there is more to it than a summary of James Sire's book.
 
John 12:31, "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out."
 
Bruce,

That was an excellent and comprehensive description.

If I could present my own concern it's that some adults (and kids they raise) get the impression that the principal aim of the Christian is to restore the culture and government to one based on Biblical principles. Some may not intend it as such but a child can get the impression (through methods of education) that their principal aim is to make sure that all their thoughts are, in principle, aligned with a Biblical outlook on things and they may even lose sight of the first thing: Christ and Him crucified.

I think many worry too much about inconsistent thoughts and ideas from people than that they would turn to Christ. There are so many simple (or just plain average) people who just can't connect all the dots but it's sort of an OCD-level irritation that any would trust in Christ and not accept that Constitutional democracy and capitalism are God's way.

I may agree with some of their ideas but it's all about where the fulcrum of my concern as an Elder is. My first consideration when I meet a person isn't whether they have their worldview comprehensively sorted out and it's not my main concern in the discipleship of my children. I would that men and women and children know Christ and we can sort out the disagreements later (or even wait until glory until it is).
 
It seems to me that folk are expressing an alternative worldview, not really escaping from the inevitability of having one.
 
MW said:
It seems to me that folk are expressing an alternative worldview, not really escaping from the inevitability of having one.
Click to expand...
Indeed. But for many people, their B R O A D worldview is entirely non-negotiable. It has the same status with them as their self-identification with Christ. With me, except for "living quietly" while fulfilling my calling as best I can, any view I hold dearly and with a passion (and believe me, I do have strong opinions) is subject I hope to critical evaluation. I'm suspicious of my own motives for imposing it on others.

And I can respect a certain passionate adherence to alternative views by those who suppose themselves equally rational, while I doubt their ability ever to persuade me. I honestly find certain U.K. pastors' outlook on the suitability and sustainability of state-socialist principles to be quite mad. Ludicrous. I just cannot bring myself to claim that MY view is THE Christian worldview, and therefore theirs is the Devil's worldview, or profoundly sub-Christian at best. But it is child's play to go into an average evangelical church in the USA and find a dozen Christians who seriously question the faith of people who dissent from a whole slate of their commonly held extra-biblical opinions.

For the party who has baptized his entire body of opinion, how does he know if his neighbor is converted? The latter starts voting with the first one's political party, that's how. There's just not much wiggle-room in some folk's straightjacket of opinions; and it makes any disagreement--e.g. on hot-button social questions (being things not confessed) and further how to express one's faith in public--matters in which the neighbor is then "positioned" by the one indissolubly wedded to his worldview/perspective/outlook.

Perhaps he is positioned in a lower level of sanctification. Perhaps he is positioned over the line of acceptable fellowship. Perhaps he is positioned in the Enemy Camp. The key positioning metric is agreement not on justification by faith alone, or an uncompromised gospel, or even eschatology; but on voting patterns; or whether one gives up vacation time for a march on the State House; or whether one is boycotting a certain target; or whether one is supporting the "Christian Rival News" network.

That is how I viewed the criticism quoted in the OP. Some "Christian worldviewers" aggressively infringe on legitimate Christian liberty of conscience, which is a pillar of my worldview. Then, they blame their (or Christians' in general) little or waning influence on the myopia of those like me who hesitated to join their crusade.
 
I respect your view, Rev. Buchanan, but I would consider your liberty to be established within a worldview. One man's freedom is another man's bondage, and vice versa. It is the worldview which sets the boundaries. A centre requires a circumference. It is not that a man has a worldview and then extends liberty to others outside of it. The worldview itself establishes the expression and limits of freedom. "And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts," Ps. 119:45.
 
zsmcd said:
What is worldviewism?

"Morecraft, who has been a pastor in the RPCUS, here has written a massive and detailed, though not technical, commentary on the Larger Catechism. Such a work, which took 20 years in the making, is very welcome, though do note that Morecraft is a Theonomist and entrenched in Worldviewism, as is the publisher (American Vision). There are also some oversights in editing and proof-reading in the volumes that are not ideal."
https://reformedbooksonline.com/commentaries-on-the-westminster-confession-of-faith/#larger
Click to expand...

In 2011 there was a thread on PB praising this edition, and Reverend Morecraft which stimulated me to purchase the 5 volume tome.
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/joseph-morecraft-on-the-larger-catechism.66360/
Doing a search for 'Morecraft' on PB and all I find is positive regarding him. Just posting this so anyone encountering his name in the original post won't get a wrong impression prior to their own investigation.
 
I think it gets difficult, as has been touched upon, where people start prescribing things that are not prescribed in Scripture e.g. the theonomist may say that the only way to punish Sabbath-breakers or homosexuals is to execute them, or the only form of Biblical civil government is constitutional democracy with a president rather than a king for head of state, or all men must grow beards.

There is a desire on the part of some to expand and complete their life and worldview so that they have clear biblical answers on everything. Some of their answers are about things that are not addressed directly in Scripture or seem to be left somewhat to practical discretion. Yet some worldviewists like to "have all their ducks in a row".

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I am not convinced that we can ever escape the notion of having a worldview. Still, some use the idea of a "Christian worldview" as an excuse to get the Bible to address all sorts of issues at a level of detail that it does not. For instance, I have heard people argue that Christ's refusal of Satan's temptation to turn stones into bread was an example of Jesus discountenancing socialism (whatever that is?). But that is not the point of the text. You may as well argue that the feeding of the four and five thousands were examples of Jesus engaging in socialism (after all, he did not charge for the food), but, again, that is not the point of the text.

According to this way of thinking there is little place for Christian prudence and the judicious application of general biblical principles to specific situations.
 
Part of the problem is that many look at w-v as lens that automatically fixes everything. When in actuality w-v, or better yet, social imaginary a la Charles Taylor, is more along the lines of "what hidden assumptions do I have about reality?"

Take the excellent example, noted above, of godly ministers who hold to socialist economics. What gives? Or of godly ministers in America who think Rothbard's economics is a good idea? Both are conditioned by cultural and philosophical assumptions of which they are rarely aware.
 
ReformedReidian said:
Part of the problem is that many look at w-v as lens that automatically fixes everything. When in actuality w-v, or better yet, social imaginary ala Charles Taylor, is more along the lines of "what hidden assumptions do I have about reality?"

Take the excellent example, noted above, of godly ministers who hold to socialist economics. What gives? Or of godly ministers in America who think Rothbard's economics is a good idea? Both are conditioned by cultural and philosophical assumptions of which they are rarely aware.
Click to expand...

Given that, A) most w-v assumptions are subconscious and perhaps even practically inaccessible, and B) there's no good reason to believe that someone's basic assumptions are perfectly consistent with the noetic edifice built upon them or even with each other, I often wonder how useful a concept worldview really is, at least in its popular parlance.

If we grant that unbelievers are not without any true assumptions about reality (even if they are "borrowed capital") and that Christians are not perfectly sanctified in this life in their reason and understanding, can we really think of anyone's (save Christ) thoughts or actions as representing a coherent worldview?

Christian w-vists have far too much faith in their own (even redeemed) reason in developing a system of deductions on the basis of w-v--a system which seems to have little use for the Reformed doctrine of the liberty of conscience.
 
Last edited:
From what I am hearing the issue is with the way the worldview requires a regulative principle for all of life instead of restricting it to matters of faith and worship. All that is being said in opposition maintains that there is a normative principle which operates on the moral level and prudence for matters of wisdom. But it is one's worldview which maintains that this is the case.
 
I agree Matthew. I think the issue is one of prudence.

Representative example is that I met one man who thought that God prescribed a way of "learning math" involving an abacus. Problem is that my son could not learn that way and struggles moving from concrete to abstract concepts (he still struggles with making change into his teens but we're getting him help).

While I can appreciate the fact that a man has a normative view for everything (including the way a child ought to learn math), the worldview is wielded as a club.

As you note, it is not the lack or presence of a worldview but the degree to which a person restricts the liberty of others to have differing scruples on a matter. Calvin's treatment on liberty of conscience is probably most apt here. He writes about the differing situations when we can restrict our own liberty out of love or concern for a brother but refuse in the case when it one insists with a Pharisaical spirit.

I'm cautious about throwing around that term because it is often abused but it is apropos in some of these situations. The Truth Project has debatable elements but it is useful in seeing how worldview on many different topics is formed from the bottom-up. The steps to get to economic or political theories are built atop many strata of exegesis and GNC and there are variations along the way where good man can differ and still have fellowship.

I see WVism as a form where the entire structure is not only a matter of personal conviction but one that defines who is in or out. Whereas the Confession is what the Church confesses together to form the boundary, a WVist more tightly circumscribes who is "in the faith" and, as such, I believe some create a form of Pharisaism that does not have the liberal spirit we are required by Scripture to have toward our neighbors and especially toward Christians. Many Christians, as I previously noted, are very simple-minded and some learned men (as the Scribes and Pharisees did) hold the simple-minded in disdain because, after all, everyone knows that a certain economic theory or way to doing math is "God's way".

Thus, for me, wv-ism isn't the fact that men are tightly holding to a wv but it's the way in which they've not only restricted the liberty of other Christians but created such a tight circle for orthodoxy that few others can fit inside.
 
As I said to Rev. Buchanan, I respect the view, but I cannot see how anyone avoids the very thing that is being opposed. By calling it an "ism" and rejecting it the person is effectively saying he cannot extend liberty to this particular view. How then is this rejection of "worldviewism" not itself a "worldviewism?"

Besides the fact that "worldviewism" is a made up word which is at the whim of the person making it up, it looks much the same as when people accuse others of "rationalism" when they are doing nothing more than using reason. Examine the reason by all means; examine the worldview by all means: but reason and worldview themselves are inescapable aspects of the human and dependent condition.
 
MW said:
As I said to Rev. Buchanan, I respect the view, but I cannot see how anyone avoids the very thing that is being opposed. By calling it an "ism" and rejecting it the person is effectively saying he cannot extend liberty to this particular view. How then is this rejection of "worldviewism" not itself a "worldviewism?"

Besides the fact that "worldviewism" is a made up word which is at the whim of the person making it up, it looks much the same as when people accuse others of "rationalism" when they are doing nothing more than using reason. Examine the reason by all means; examine the worldview by all means: but reason and worldview themselves are inescapable aspects of the human and dependent condition.
Click to expand...
OK then Matthew. I admit it's not a good word but we deal in concepts.

Do you agree with Calvin's distinctions he makes in his treatment of liberty of conscience? I believe this is the issue at hand and not really whether I'm disallowing a person to have a worldview that is more restrictive than my own.

It seems we're haggling over words rather than the concepts themselves. If we grant that wv-ism is an inelegant or worthless word then we at least need to deal with the Scriptural principle that men treat the commandments of men as the Word of God and place shackles on others. It's called wv-ism because it's a form of that principle that involves an obsession with wv for its own sake. Jesus described the Jews love of Rabbinic tradition and had words to describe that based on what they were obsessed about.
 
Semper Fidelis said:
Do you agree with Calvin's distinctions he makes in his treatment of liberty of conscience? I believe this is the issue at hand and not really whether I'm disallowing a person to have a worldview that is more restrictive than my own.
Click to expand...

Rich, liberty in lesser matters is important to understand and apply. But, again, it is the worldview which is dictating that certain matters are of lesser importance so that liberty may be extended to them. One requires a circumference in order to keep what is central in the centre. Move the outer circle and the centre changes.
 
So when Calvin judges that which is the spirit of the Pharisee in the Institutes is he being illiberal towards those whom he is describing?
 
Semper Fidelis said:
So when Calvin judges that which is the spirit of the Pharisee in the Institutes is he being himself illiberal towards those whom he is describing?
Click to expand...

A pertinent question, and my answer is obviously in the negative, but it is dependent on one's idea of liberty. Calvin refused to give liberty to libertines and legalists alike. He came down just as harshly on the libertine as on the legalist. In other words, "liberty" and "liberality" are terms relative to the ethical system of the person. They are not absolutes in themselves.
 
Semper Fidelis said:
So Calvin's description is only relative to his own ethical system and not useful for us?
Click to expand...

Useful so far as it goes, but unhelpful if not balanced with the ethical structures and strictures which Calvin would place on the extension of liberty. Calvin kept the gospel in the centre, but he also maintained the principles of godliness and the importance of a godly society.
 
Exactly my point. In other words, keeping the gospel at the center as well as maintaining The principles of godliness we can judge whether or not certain views are not in keeping with scripture. Regardless of what we call it, it is not merely a matter of the relative value that we place on our own ethical system.

It seems to me you have been reading into this critique some sort of libertine notions that have never been part of the general critique being offered. I really don't know the person being critiqued in the original post so my comments have not been directed at him but at the over arching principle being discussed. That said, a critique of one system does not imply that the person offering the critique is arguing for libertine ideas.
 
My point was not that the critique is coming from "libertine ideas." I only mentioned the libertines in order to answer your question about Calvin. The point is that the critique is coming from "another system" which is just as dependent on worldview as the system which is being critiqued.
 
MW said:
My point was not that the critique is coming from "libertine ideas." I only mentioned the libertines in order to answer your question about Calvin. The point is that the critique is coming from "another system" which is just as dependent on worldview as the system which is being critiqued.
Click to expand...
I never read anyone in this thread denying that they possess a worldview. I thought that was axiomatic. It seems to me quite odd for people to be discussing a particular worldview where another participant simply keeps adding: "...you do realize that you have a worldview too?"

But, of course.

If we were discussing libertinism then I would find it odd if someone kept adding "...but you have a worldview too."

If I sound pugnacious it's because I'm quite bewildered at the point you're making.
 
Semper Fidelis said:
If I sound pugnacious it's because I'm quite bewildered at the point you're making.
Click to expand...

ISM. It should not be called an ISM. It should not be rejected under the notion that it is an ISM. The particulars of the worldview should be discussed and examined, not rejected under the general notion that someone is doing something which he should not be doing when he is only doing what everybody naturally does. With the measure one metes out to others his own worldview would have to be rejected as an ISM because it is by means of his own worldview he rejects another's worldview as an ISM. It is self-defeating and exhibits partiality.
 
Last edited:
Are you against ISMs as a rule?

Conservatism. Liberalism. Humanism. Capitalism.

Should we avoid those terms on this board because they end in ISM?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top