Let’s begin by watching this short clip from the Christian Broadcasting Network interviewing pollster George Barna who offers dire warnings about the imminent dangers let loose by American Christians’ lack of a Biblical world-view.
The CBN video clip is titled “Few Professed Christian Parents Hold a Biblical World-View.”
Frankly, I have never been a fan of the idea that Christian’s must hold onto a well-developed “Biblical world-view.”
For many years I taught at a college that required all incoming freshmen to take a class intended to press upon their young minds the details of a Reformed world-view. I was never a fan of that curriculum decision, either, and I spoke out against it at the time.
As a Christian educator, my basic objection – which I will elaborate below – had to do with the difference between education vs. indoctrination.
A basic principle of all good education, including a so-called Christian education, I believe, is to grasp the crucial distinction between teaching a person how to think as opposed to indoctrinating a person into what to think.
Focusing on the maintenance and preservation of a “Christian” or “Biblical” world-view places the emphasis on indoctrination rather than on learning how to think for oneself. This is why indoctrination so often fails once the pressures, expectations, and boundaries of homelife and college performance are finally lifted.
In all likelihood, that young mind will eventually decide that he/she has outgrown the days of being told what to think and believe.
Young adults have agency. They are not robots. Mr. Barna’s facile insistence that every young person who lacks an adequate Christian world-view is necessarily the derelict product of parental failure is both glib and harsh. It is also offensive.
The church is filled with a wide variety of adults with very different views on parenting. Of course, the church has always had its share of hypocrites, which is certainly noticed by the community’s young people.
I observed a great deal of hypocrisy while growing up in the church. Yet, I eventually decided to devote my life to following Jesus. Others are raised by strict, religious parents far more intent on both indoctrination and the maintenance of an indoctrinated lifestyle than mine ever were. Yet, I have watched many of them walk away from the church and abandon their youthful professions of faith.
For years I was ordained in a denomination that included an extensive Catechism (that is, an exercise in doctrinal education – a world-view – that was laid out in a question-and-answer format, typically memorized by the students) among its doctrinal statements. This Reformed version of “Sunday school” was valuable to many young people. But, trust me, I have also heard many stories over the years from others who eagerly repudiated their Catechetical confession of faith as soon as they were free to do so.
So, in my not-so-humble opinion, Mr. Barna needs to zip it when it comes to asserting simpleminded, cause-and-effect relationships between parental responsibility and the irreligious world-views of young people.
But let’s probe more deeply into the fundamental errors of such misguided insistence on the creation of a Biblical world-view.
First, I must object to the indefinite article “a.”
Barna’s discussion is typical in its assumption that there is only one, that is “A,” Biblical world-view. Just as there presumably is A Marxist world-view, or A relativistic world-view, there is supposedly A Biblical world-view.
Really?
Whose interpretation of the Bible are we talking about? The original, ancient Biblical world-view insisted that the earth was flat, and that rain fell from an ocean of water contained somewhere in the sky, to mention only a few of its “Biblical” principles. Should “faithful” parents teach these archaic, anti-scientific notions to their children?
Furthermore, who draws the boundaries distinguishing (1) a properly Biblical world-view from (2) a tendentious cultural world-view?
For the vast majority of American evangelicals such cultural artifacts as raw individualism, inalienable rights to private property, unregulated capitalism, and US style “democracy” are all self-evident, necessary ingredients of a truly Biblical world-view.
But are they? Really?
So, the many thousands, if not millions, of faithful Christians throughout western history who espoused Christian socialism (like Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer), defended the divine right of kings (like John and Charles Wesley), or insisted that true Christian faith demanded communal living where all goods are held in common (like many, early Pietists) – they were all deluded by defective world-views that sadly led their children astray?
Who exactly decides THE one legitimate Biblical world-view? Who draws its boundaries? Who makes the final, authoritative distinction between the necessary, Biblical truths and the unnecessary, peripheral cultural add-ons? And whose Biblical truths become THE Biblical truths?
Personally, I have never heard these unavoidable questions addressed adequately in any of the conversations I have listened to or read that promoted this idea of a “Biblical world-view.”
And this is a big part of the reason why I think the entire conversation about world-views is bunk.
My most radical critique, however, drilling down to the most fundamental error of world-view thinking, is the neglect of discipleship.
Yep, I know that world-view advocates will protest here. They insist that possessing a Biblical world-view IS fundamental to Christian discipleship, and a large majority of the evangelical church agrees, in principle.
But this is precisely where the American church goes astray. Because the real focal point of Christian discipleship is Jesus, the crucified, resurrected Galilean.
Disciples know Jesus personally. They follow after Jesus closely. They submit the entirety of their lives to Jesus’ Lordship, and they want to conform their lives to Jesus’ own pattern of living and instruction.
Genuine discipleship is not acquired by memorizing theological principles, nor by mastering critiques of alternative world-views, nor by learning the right way “to think” about life’s questions.
Disciples are made through submission and obedience to the crucified Savior who becomes so loved and adored by the sinners he has saved that they will do anything he asks of them, no matter how odd, counter-cultural, counter-intuitive, offensive, or difficult it may be.
Many of the most serious disciples may never be able to articulate a coherent, integrated “world-view,” at least not to Mr. Barna’s satisfaction. But they will know the living Jesus and follow Him faithfully to the bitter end.
Certainly, genuine discipleship requires Bible study. But the focus of that study turns from learning doctrinal proof-texts to focus on the absorption of stories and lessons about Jesus’ shocking lifestyle among society’s most marginalized.
The focus turns to Jesus’ ethical teachings about selfless love, radical obedience, personal sacrifice, self-denial, anti-materialism, simplicity, generosity, sharing, and absolute allegiance to the resurrected Lord, even to the point of dying for Him, if necessary.
For much of my adult life I have been convinced that one of the great failings of the American church has been its preference for teaching the theological complexities of the apostle Paul rather than exploring Jesus’ outrageous moral requirements.
A proper, Christian world-view only emerges in the hearts and minds of those who wake up every morning with a renewed commitment to follow hard after Jesus, to become more and more like Jesus, to love Jesus with all the sincerity of someone who has pledged herself to “obey all of Jesus’ commandments.”
Does my alternative to world-view thinking give us a guaranteed, uniform answer to every philosophical question? Does it keep us all on the same page about knowing how to address life’s problems? Of course not.
But it does set us on the right path.
It does clarify that the heart and soul of the Christian life is not so much about what we know as it is about who we love and the way we live.
It does make us real Christians, not fakes.
It does put us in touch with God’s voice as He speaks through His Word, both through the words of holy Scripture as well as the words of His one and only holy Son.
And oh, my goodness, what a difference it would make in this world if the church were to prioritize wholesale obedience to our suffering Savior Jesus Christ – even to the point of our own suffering and death – as its number one value. The supposed need for a Biblical world-view would vanish in an instant.
I really like what you have said here. I couldn’t agree more. And I have an MA in Apologetics from (I am almost embarrassed to say, but this is my journey) Liberty Baptist. I especially like what you said about Jesus v Paul. Why do we preach most of our sermons from Paul and ignore the teachings of the Gospels?
Thanks, Rob. Good to hear from you. I have pondered your question for a LONG time. What answers have you come to? I have a few hypotheses but no hard evidence to prove my theories. But here are my thoughts: 1) For years, centuries even, pastoral theological training focused on systematic/dogmatic theology which naturally places Paul’s instruction at the center of Christian thinking and pastoral teaching. 2) This emphasis led to an implicit belief that teaching about Jesus, as the entry way into the faith, was the equivalent of offering “milk” to the congregation. When the people were mature and ready for real “meat”, which every long-time church attender ought to be, it was time to teach Paul — or so they thought. 3) I suspect that the typical seminary instruction in homiletics was most interested in explaining didactic texts, as more challenging and complex, than it was in unpacking narrative texts, which are presumed to be basic and obvious. Dogmatics was King for so long. I remember Bruce Waltke once talking about Dallas TS and its refusal to allow courses in biblical theology. That teaches preachers to approach every text with a preconceived dogmatic outline already in mind. 4) Perhaps clerical ego gets involved? Teachers lean in the direction of showing off their theological acumen, which means they turn to Paul. Teaching the gospels becomes mere “story telling” by comparison. 5) I also strongly suspect that the human tendency to want to avoid Jesus’ “unrealistic” ethical demands also becomes a factor. In the Medieval church, if you wanted to do that, then you became a monk or a nun. To do that within the church would raise too much controversy and community resistance. It’s a good way to be kicked out of your parish. Plus, that would mean the preacher would have to take Jesus’ teaching seriously him/herself. 6) I also wonder if the long history of interpreting the gospel within a juridical rather than a covenantal framework is also a factor. A great deal of Jesus’ teaching can be read as the endorsement of “works righteousness” if the interpreter is not careful. Protestant-Reformation churches abhorred these apparent results and so decided not to give their people seemingly dangerous temptations by taking Jesus seriously. Of course, gaining a clearer understanding Jesus’ ethics within the framework of the new covenant, seen in continuity with the old covenant and the law, is a fairly recent development. 7) Finally, I suspect that the common failure to understand ethics as an essential component of all theology is also a problem. I don’t think many preachers know how to make practical application practical or specific, so stick with dogmatics and ignore challenging ethics. As I listen to radio preachers I am consistently shocked at the near complete absence of any meaningful ethical, practical application, with challenging calls to response, in the vast majority of sermons I hear. Jesus and his teaching are not amenable to what the typical preacher/teacher has been trained to do. Now, what are your thoughts?
Excellent to ponder and wrestle with –
Love this so much -“Disciples are made through submission and obedience to the crucified Savior who becomes so loved and adored by the sinners he has saved that they will do anything he asks of them, no matter how odd, counter-cultural, counter-intuitive, offensive, or difficult it may be.”
Thanks, Kevin. Let me know about the results of your pondering sometime. I’d love to hear your thoughts. I am still working on what it means to follow Jesus faithfully in my own life. I pray I will be drawn closer and closer to Him in the years ahead. Blessings.
Couple of things I am curious about:
1) “For the vast majority of American evangelicals such cultural artifacts as raw individualism, inalienable rights to private property, unregulated capitalism, and US style “democracy” are all self-evident, necessary ingredients of a truly Biblical world-view.”
No they are not requirements. Just as Christians in the past taught perhaps about the divine right of kings, we are taught to respect the governing bodies set before us assuming they do not obvious ask us to violent how God would have us act. However, I would say the primary reason why so many in the evangelical community strive towards democracy, freedom, and individual rights is because human kind thrives best under such conditions. We have seen far greater suffering in other forms of man-made government and so it only makes sense to advocate for something that allows for the greatest good to be done domestically and abroad. I think perhaps the counter question is if you think there is something unbiblical about the list you presented?
2) “So, in my not-so-humble opinion, Mr. Barna needs to zip it when it comes to asserting simpleminded, cause-and-effect relationships between parental responsibility and the irreligious world-views of young people.”
Should parents then NOT pass on their values and how they are applied in the world? My wife and I have had this conversation, and I would say you must both teach children what to think AND how to think. Because we as parents should give them a grounding and foundation. The ability to reason and think will give them the ability to refine such views, question them, and embrace life powerfully because a world-view, so to speak, gives them a context for the experiences they will have.
But to neglect teaching a blank slate of a child what to think would be neglectful and unbiblical. Unless I misunderstand your point.
3) “Who exactly decides THE one legitimate Biblical world-view?” World-views come down to a collection of opinions on issues grouped into a collective descriptor. Let me ask you back, is there a one single legitimate world-view? One that represents truth best? Such would mean is there a moral absolute answer to every question in life that has a moral point behind it? If the answer is yes, which I think there is, then the answer is scripture gives us the legitimate world view. And all other questions can then be filtered through the idea of what coincides best with scripture. But I would advocate there is no gray, there is simply understanding which side of the line an answer falls.
Just some friendly inquiries. Thank you.
Hello Andy. Thanks for your comments and questions. I will respond in the same order. 1) I am happy to know that you do not believe these issues are essential elements of a Biblical world-view. Unfortunately, many other Americans do. I have read them, heard them, and spoken with them. 2) I think the answer to this is obvious in my post. As I tried to make clear, my main point here was to critique Barna’s reductionistic, mechanistic perspective on parental instruction and adolescent response/acceptance. There are too many broken-hearted Christian parents in the world who did their very best to raise their children in the fear of the Lord who grieve over their rebellion. Barna’s simplistic presentation cannot be allowed to stand. 3) My point is that the entire world-view discussion is a waste of time. I won’t contribute to it. It distracts from what we ought to be doing: teaching ourselves, our children, and everyone else that the purpose of life is to follow Jesus with complete devotion, love, and submissiveness. When folks who are all living with this disposition as real disciples sit down to study scripture and discuss moral issues, we can count on the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Many things is scripture are black and white. But I cannot agree that we can discern such clarity on every modern question. God certainly sees a great deal in black and white. But the apostle Paul allows for different Christians to arrive at different ethical decisions depending on personal conscience. This is an important biblical teaching that disproves your confidence in everything being black and white.
I hope this helps. Thanks again. David