Inerrancy and the Spiritual Formation of Younger Evangelicals. Carlos R. Bovell
Читать онлайн книгу.
define “metaphysics” as that discipline that answers “(1) What is the basic nature of reality and what are the basic kinds of items that make up reality? (2) Why does the universe exist?”36 Now there is definitely an overlap between these two definitions and it has been notoriously difficult to satisfactorily define either of these two words, but by defining “worldview” in such a way that it so closely resembles “religion” and “metaphysics,” it seems to me that Christian worldview teachers are assuming that the Christian worldview is so comprehensive and so grand that it can accommodate, anticipate and synthesize every other person’s deepest questions.
For example, how does one initiate a conversation that aims to emphasize worldviews? Well, one tack that might be taken—and this is the tack that is promulgated in countless churches and amongst Christian college students especially—is to bring every conversation, in however meandering a way, back to “first principles.” Peck and Strohmer are typical when they instruct, “One enlightening way is to begin with a part. Ask basic questions of an issue or subject, and repeatedly ask them until there is no way of answering further.”37 Or in other words keep asking questions about “more ultimate issues” until, in essence, they have to cry, “Mystery!” James Sire explains that he teaches students to tactfully keep asking “Why?” until the answers stop coming.38 This will take you back to what holds things together for a particular person—what Peck and Strohmer call “god” (or “God,” if they prove to be “biblical” Christians). Take the lead of secular writers:
1. What is the nature of our world? How is it structured . . . ?
2. Why is our world the way it is, and not different . . . ?
3. Why do we feel the way we feel in this world, and how do we assess global reality, and the role of our species in it?39
and run with them back to an “Ultimate” and discern, Is this God or is this an idol? That, in a nutshell, is what will distinguish the Christian worldview from non-Christian ones. But could this not be construed as a “language-game” with the word “why” whose existence or non-existence is not in need of explanation?40 In other words, it is no big deal if not everybody plays this game.
Either way, Christians seem to be engaged here in a variety of “damage control.” I have heard that C. S. Lewis had an especially keen eye for recognizing what he understood to be “loaded questions”, but this is precisely what worldview philosophy aims to do: load the questions.41 Recall the overlap in the definitions of “worldview,” “religion,” and “metaphysics.” At first it was hard for me to appreciate how evangelicals really do stack the deck in favor of an instinctual drive for synthesis. From within the parameters of evangelicalism itself, it is no easy task to perceive, much less appreciate, those things that seem so natural to us but strange to others, yet consider the observations made by Mandair in a recent essay on the philosophy of religion: “[T]he point at which the philosophy of religion originated as a discipline was motivated as much by an intellectual development of religion as by cultural politics and political necessity—the ‘need’ to save ‘us,’ the West, from the impending dangers of encounter, contact and contamination by alien ideas from the East.”42 I interpret Mandair minimally to be saying here that sometimes what first appears to be a decided intellectual turn toward rational and critical reasoning can also be understood as a defensive, protective ideological strategy when viewed from another angle. Although I do not consider myself a postmodern by any stretch of the imagination, I have come to appreciate for myself that worldview philosophy is not an innocent, harmless tool that merely facilitates critical Christian self-analysis and strategic cultural engagement. Worldview philosophy also has a rarely acknowledged ideological underside; a built-in, self-reinforcing feature that makes a believer especially ripe for self-perpetuating, worldview addiction, as it were.
For instance, the probing, question-asking worldview philosophy was initially adapted by evangelicals as a systemic response to real or perceived systemic attack and as such requires that Christians sustain a heavy systematic emphasis whether or not the cultural or intellectual context calls for it. In other words, the potentially helpful conceptual tool of “worldview” morphs all too easily into a dialogical muscling kit in the hands of evangelizing Christians, lending itself to an exaggerated, if not false, sense of accomplished synthesis. Heightened are its dangers when used in response to a culture that, at the moment, is far more fragmented than solid.
To see what I mean about loading the questions, imagine briefly if worldview philosophy were unleashed in such a way that it set Christian against Christian, youth against youth. This is typically what has happened in the denominational struggles that seem to define evangelical churches. The only way to check denominational fragmentation and keep the insuperable denominational differences from the eyes of students is to load the questions in such a way that the denominational problem no longer surfaces. In more than one way, the synthesis provided by worldview philosophy is overstated—at least to the degree that it must allow for a plethora of understandings under the rubric of “evangelical Christianity.”
Add to these the varieties contained within the “liberal” churches, the Roman Catholic churches, the Orthodox churches and Seventh-Day Adventists and so on and it is not hard to see that what was thought to be the Christian worldview as evangelicals understand it is really but a variant within a matrix of Christian worldviews whose continuity is not always readily apparent. Furthermore, how often is what one evangelical denomination holds to be a biblical worldview denied as unbiblical by another? Deciding who is Christian and who is not has never been an easy matter,43 but surely worldview philosophy unduly contributes to an exaggerated sense of solidarity (by way of its heavy emphasis on synthesis) that is simply not reflective of the current, or historical, ecclesial state of affairs.
IV. Concluding Remarks
I have endeavored in this chapter to suggest, albeit in a rather sweeping manner, that evangelical worldview philosophy can “corrupt” youths when accepted as a God-send. Religious worldviews are by their very nature not as consistent as often touted, more inherently plural than typically acknowledged, and overly wistful with respect to synthesis. But vogues, by their nature, will hardly do as historically contingent and culturally convenient tools for self-criticism that can and should be supplemented. Unless their leaders and teachers tell them otherwise, younger evangelicals will have to realize for themselves that (in Donogan’s words) “no matter how tempting it may be to identify an entity asserted as part of religious revelation with an entity asserted by philosophy (or science), their identity should always be regarded as disputable philosophical doctrine, and not as part of the deposit of faith.”44 In short, worldview philosophy can and should be supplemented, allowing younger evangelicals a broader horizon for their evangelical theorizing and greater latitude in intellectual discourse generally.
Younger evangelicals should not be dismayed if there ever comes a time or an occasion during which they happen to espouse a “worldview” that raises questions that are precluded by more accepted paradigms for conceiving Scripture. It is merely part of the course of wrestling with the mysteries of the faith and stretching oneself to conceive how they might impinge upon everyday living. Religious worldviews will have fuzzy bounds on account of their religious nature and a common way for evangelicals to work through them is by shoring up their faith in Scripture by introducing equivocal connotations to the word “Bible.”45 To help us better see this, let us expound upon the case of the believing biblical scholar which was considered only cursorily in the present chapter.