Most Christians give little consideration to formation of a Christian worldview.
In the absence of formal training at a Christian college or lack of familiarity with Christian authors who have written extensively on the topic such as Francis Schaeffer or Arthur Holmes, interest in the subject is often limited to questions of personal morality or public policy that supports, even if it does not endorse, Christian values.
But what does it mean to speak of a Christian “worldview”? If such a view exists, how does one determine what makes a view “Christian” in the true sense of the word? Is it even possible to find consensus on such a subject? After all, academicians have debated the topic for centuries, denominations have differed on how to define it, and countless Christians have struggled with how best to express biblical directives for honoring Christ in their homes, churches, and communities.
As the Judeo-Christian worldview has receded in modern Western society, nihilism, atheism, secularism, post-modernism, and a resurgent paganism now present competitive paradigms for explaining the meaning of life and our purpose here on planet earth. Bifurcation of facts from values has contributed to the identity dysphoria endemic to the dislocation of self in society that trouble people today. Issues related to sexual empowerment and individual gratification dominate public policy debate, even as our nation’s values related to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness find new definition in the reshaping of longstanding positions on private and public morality.
{tweetme}Most Christians give little consideration to formation of a Christian worldview.{/tweetme}
With the present emphasis on diversity and inclusiveness, one might be skeptical that any one paradigm for explaining life is better than another; everything, it is suggested, is just a matter of perspective. Besides, paradigms, so it is argued, are only one more form of power play by which someone (an individual or society) seeks to suppress and subjugate others for their self-benefit. The thought of a meta-narrative that explains the meaning of existence and reality in a definitive and authoritative manner is rejected as an outright impossibility.
Readers familiar with the history of the Christian Church may also find the evidence inconclusive for how best to form a “Christian worldview.” Is the answer to be found in the theocratic model of ancient Israel where church and state functioned in a geo-political unity with a national identity? But what of the changes that take place with the incarnation of Christ and intrusion of the Messianic Kingdom as fulfillment of OT prophecies and promises? Ethnicity and physical lineage give way to a gracious inclusiveness embedded in OT promises that expands beyond the borders of ancient Israel and now includes (in a way richer, fuller, and less partial) people from every tribe, nation, and tongue among the reward of Christ’s inheritance. Absent political influence or military power, the early church exercises an indigenous counter-cultural missional presence as New Testament standards of belief and behavior stand in bold contrast to contemporary pagan mores, ultimately reshaping Roman society and becoming an established “religion” whose influence in the coming centuries would be global in impact.
But even with public recognition and acceptance of the presence of the Christian Church within Western society, opinions differed on how to embody a “Christian worldview.” Medieval Christians viewed state and church as a unified whole; the Pope is vicar of the earth and monarchs are not absolute in their authority but ultimately beneath the papacy in empowerment. By the time of the Protestant Reformation, some Christians viewed the State in a supportive but not directive role in relation to the Church; others felt the state is there to enforce Christian morality and prevent doctrinal declension. Still others felt that exercise of a Christian worldview meant a form of personal pacifism and withdrawal from society in the interests of preserving Christian morality in the home and separated community. Church and state were separate and distinct, and the latter was not to be intrusive of the former for defining its membership and regulating its order.
While emphases varied among professing Christians in how best to honor Christ as a citizen and member of the Church, each in their own way attempted to rethink life in light of the coming of Christ and the words of the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done.”
In other words, the kingdom priorities that Christ taught his disciples to learn and pray remain the same standard by which we must live our lives and learn how to conform all our actions whether in the private or public arena.
Influential German theologian Klaus Bockmuehl once recounted the impact of a radio interview he heard as a young man when a distinguished Christian leader was asked in the final fifteen seconds of the program how he would sum up the purpose of his life. What answer would you give if you had only fifteen seconds to respond?
The respondent’s answer was brief but pungent: “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done.”
Can we with honesty say that this is what we have committed our lives to? That the doing of God’s will and seeking the advance of His kingdom is the first priority of my life? That everything else about what I want to do and desire to have is penultimate to seeking God and His will first in my life?
Christ provided such an example in how he lived his life. And he has also given us instruction on how we can accomplish this in our lives today.
Read part 2 of this article here.
Jim Garretson led Christian Union’s ministry at Harvard Law School from 2013-2017.
