WORlOVlfWS OVfR ~Offff AT STARBU~KS

WH EN CHR ISTIANS SEE A ROOK ahout world views, they automatically

assume it is about apologetics-a defense of the ChriHian faith. That

assumption is correct for this book as weB, but this is apologetics with

an important twist . Like: oth er w orldview books, w e: attem pt to demon­

strate the: inadequacie~ of non-Christ ian thought systems or life orien­

Tations, and to convince readers that Christian it ~· offen something bet­

ter. But that is not our only goal, and perhaps it is not even our primary

purpose . The twist is that this apologetics book also aims to provoke

Christians to adopt a Christian world view. Too often, we assume that

non-Christian worldviews stay safely on the other side of the chu rch

door. A s you will see below, we believe that th is is far from the ease. In

fact, much of this book grows out of ou r own self-reflection to isolate

areas where hidden worldviews, alien to Christianity, have crept into

our thoughts and lifestyles.

T he theory that Christians arc largely immune to the influe nce of

non-Christian thought structures is often unconsciously perpetuated

c ~ ightod m3~

12

by worldview book. that identify "theistic existentialism . postffiodern

deconstrllcrionism, M arxism or similar ph ilosophical systems as C h ris­

tianity's main comper;rorj. These worldviews are, to be sure, .onlr.>ry

10 " Christian "iew of the world in fundamemal ways, and it ;s com­

ple tely proper to frame an imellecrual response to them. Howevu,

stopping here has Iwo important limitat ions. First, somewhere along

the line, Chris t ians howe bought into t he idea Ihat philo,ophie~ born

and perpetuated in " niv.roilin topn:,em the greatc>! challenge to a

Chri,t ian worldvie",. \V. bdi.". that i . wrong-headed. How many

people do you know who are locked in deep conflict ovcr whethu to

become an mheist ic existentialist o r a Chri,tian? H ow man\' commit­

ted 1I-hrxi51s do you run into on a daily basis? T he reality is that we

don't r<'ally encounte r mass ive hcrd~ of people entked by the thought

'ystems found in a typical ",orldview hook.

T he second limitation of mo", world,·ie", book. i. t hm they let

Christian readers off the hook too ea.ily. After reading such books ,

they fre<I'lently will conchlde ,hatth. author is correct "bout the defi­

ciencies of competing idea~ and the sufficiency ofChr ist i;m idea,. Be­

cause of thi. agr.ement, Chri.tian. often further conclude thnt their

faith remain. lm{>~inted by contrary worldvicw,. Thi, create, a danger­

ous situation if the real compet ition for the heart< and mind. ofChri.­

tian. and non-Ch ri. tians alike doc. nOt spring from the academy, where

the world,·iew. arc dearly formubted and expressed. \Vh", if the real

competit ion come ' from worldvicw. We do nM Se C al all, eVen if they

su rround us?

W e believe Ihi. i.the ,itllation. 11 i. not Ih~ world view. that begin a,

theories or intellectual systems that mold the live. and beliefs of 100",

peopic. Instead, the most powerful infllenee. cOme from worldv;ew!

that emerge fro m culture. They arc "II around us, but are s(> dee ply em­

bedded in culture thaI we don't sec them. In olher word" these world­

views ,lfe hidden in piain . ight. \.y~ wi ll o<;casionally call1h~m "lived

world,·iew.w

because we "r. mOre l ikcl,· to "hsorb Ihem thro ugh cu h ur~1

CO ll1ad than adopt them through ~ rational c\·" lualion of compcling

the"rie ~ . These lind w"rld\";ew! arc l'opllhir philos<>phits of life Ih"l

h~\"e few inlclkctual proponents bot ,",,$t nUlTl be ," of 1'1'~~(il;one rs .

,

13

The eight belief systems we identify as hidden wo rldv iews-individ­

ualism, consumerism, nat ional ism, moral relat ivism, naturalism, the

ew A ge , pos rmodern rribj,l ism and s:.livat ion by therapy-fit this

model. This is certainly not an exhaust ive list,1 bur they arc among th e

m ost pervasive life-shaping perspectives in North American cu lture. Tf

YOll obse rve ca refully, yo u hear and see them everywhere-in offices ,

dorm ito ries, Internet chat rooms and ovcr-coffce-at-Starbucks convcr­

satiol1S. l\1o rcovcr. they arc not limited to secular venues. Bcc:'lU SC of

their stealthy nature, these world views find their way behind the church

doors, m ixed in with Christ ian ideas and sometimes identified as

Christian positions.

This accounts fo r the "apologetic rwist" mentioned at the beginning

of the book. Many C hri stians have imported chunks of these world­

views w ithout being aware of it. This is difficult to avoid because they

arc embedded throughout North American culture. M oreover, because

we do not encounter them as intellectual system s, they usually fly under

the radar of consc ious thought. Thus, their power oVer liS is increased

s ince we are often unaware of how they shape our life and ideas. In

short, no one is immune from the influence of these pe rspect ives . They

a re very real competitors with Christian ity, and they stake their claim

on the lives of C hri stians and nonbelieve rs alike.

Because we wiJi exam ine world views that are absorbed through cu l­

t ure rather than adopted through rational appraisa l, the structure and

approach of th is book w ill differ from many oth ers in the "worldview"

category. M ost world view books proceed by invest igating the writ ings

of those who propose intcllectu ::d thought systems, and then they un­

dertttkc a tho rough evaluation o f the coherence of these ideas. This

m akes perfect sense when examining worldviews that o riginate as the­

o retical systems. H owever, the ove r-coffee-at- Starbucks worldviews

we examine do not have this sort of starting point. They m ay indeed

h ave philosophical and academic con nections or origins, but by the

'You mighl note. for el:ample, that we do nO! address the major world religions, which certa inly fir the e ~l egory ofli l'ed worldviews. \Ve h:we nm examined Ihese for two reasons. Fits!, we wanl lO foc us On Ihe North AmericB tI cu ll ur:,l cOluext. a rid eve n Ihough the influence of other religion. is growing here, we do nOt believc their imp;lcl is ns direct as those wc have selected. Second, ;Idd~,sing this arc:1 in an :.tdeq uatc m;lnncr would double rhc lengTh of this book.

14 HID DEN \VO IU.DV TEW S

time these ideas trickle down to popular American culture, they man­

ifest themselves in different 'ways. For example, what we call posrmod­

ern tribalism has roots in pos tmodern phi losophy, as the name implies,

but it is not the same as post modern philosophy. Capitalist econom ic

theory has influenced both consumerism and individu alism, two

worldviews examined later in this book. h is a mistake, however, to

equate either with capital ism o r, for that m:l.tter, to assume that capi­

talism is the only influcI1cC on these systems. Thus, we will examine

worldvicws in their everyd ay express ion, no t their more purified theo­

ret ical forms, because that is how most people experience them and are

drawn under their influence. (This also, by the: way, cms down sig­

nificantly on the number of footnotes.)

Our second departure from the traditional model is to approach

worldviews as more than just intellectual sys tems. Some reade rs wi1i

take us to task for this because they define worldview as an intentional

attempt to frame answe rs to the deepest quest ions in life. Such attempts

consc iously begin with the aim of di rectly addressing questions about

G od, real ity, knowledge, goodness, human n ature and other founda­

tional questions. M ost of the li\'ed worldviews we will examine do not

start here . Never theless, as we will see, they imply answers to all of the

questions that theoret ical worldviews attempt to address. Jo.10reover,

the effect of our lived worldviews is the same sought by their theoretical

cousins. They ttll us what we should love or despise , what is valuable or

unimportant, and what is good or evil. All worldviews offer definitions

of the fundamental human problem and how we might fix it. \,yhen

you ge t right down to it, every worldview attempts to answer the ques­

tion "What mu st we do to be saved?" Regardless of whether it comes to

us as a theoretical construct or is soaked tip by osmosis from culture,

our worldview will have a deep imp:lct on how we view our universe,

ourselves and OlLr act ions.

Because these hidden world views do what theoretical worldviews do

(propose answers to fundamental guesrions and shape our lives) , we do

not hesitate to use the term worldview to describe the systems in this

book. VVhile we do not reject the validity of the intentiona l, rationa l

exam ination of these questions, we think it stops too soon. The real ity

15

oflife is that, while humans are rational beings, we are not just rat ional

beings. The vast majority of liS do not commit to a worldview by initiat­

ing a purely intellectual compari son of compet ing ph ilosoph ies and

choosing what appea rs to be the most coherent one. W e don't just think

our way into worldviews, we experienu them.

For most of us, our worldviews come to li S more like a story or faith

commitment rather than a system of ideas we select among a buffet of

intel lectual options. h is certainly the case that we arc able to ext ract

ideas that characterize each w orldview, and this will occupy a signifi­

cant amou nt of O Uf attention in each chapter. Nevertheless, we want to

be aware that, for most of li S, wo rldviews are not primarily systems of

interl inked ideas and beliefs, but they are experienced, :tbso rbed and

expressed in the midst o f life .

REAl-L IFE. WHOL E- LIFE WORLOVIEWS

If what we have sa id so far m akes sense, it means that the entire

wo rldview ente rprise is a lot messier than is often implied by many

books on the top ic. ) :tmes Si re's underst:tnding of wo rldview helps il­

lumin::ne some re:tsons behind thi s messiness. As he defines it, "A

worldview is 3. commitment, ::1 fundamental or ientation of the heart,

that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppos itions (assump­

tions which may be true, partially tfue or entirely false) which we

ho ld (consc io usly o r subco nsc iously, consistently or incon sistently)

:tbou t the b:ts ic constitution of re ality, and that provides the founda­

tion o n which we live and move and have o ur being."2 We will break

Sire's definition down into pieces slowly, hut it is important fro m the

beginning to cl arify what he means by hearl. Our culture tends to

speak of the heart in reference to feelings o r emotions. Sire reminds

us, however, th at the biblical concept o f heart is much richer than

this. It includes the emotions, but also encompasses wisdom, desire

and will, sp irituality and intellect. In sho rt, the heart is, "the central

defining element of the human person."l

IJam~5 Sire, No1millg Ihr E/tpho/ll: lI'()rld'fJi~ :1J us iI C()/lup! (Do .... ners Gral· ... IlL: ImerV:trsity Preu, 2004), p. 122.

lIbid., p. 124.

16 H IDDEN \VO IU.DV TE WS

Equating heart with the entire person helps us idenrify one impor­

tant factor that contributes to real-lite worldview mess iness . W orld­

views arc not just cognitive const ructs in which the relative amo unts o f

truth and crror included in them determine the relative success o r

failure of our lives . Real human beings, beings with "heart," arc multi­

dimensional; our lives possess physical , economic, psycholog ica l, po ­

litical, spiritual, soc ial and intellectual facets. This is why we intuit ively

recognize that a person with a clear and coherent grasp o f intellectual

truth still lives a less than complete life if they arc economically careless

or a psychological basket case (or, we would add, spir itually indiffer­

ent). To isolate the intellectual component as the exclu sive concern o f

worldview formation, as m any world view books do, is reductionistic. It

co ndenses a real multidimensional person to a sing le aspect of hi s or her

actua l existence. T o be sure, our intellect is important, but if taken in

isolation it fails to put complete and real peo ple in the picture.

The charge of reductio nism is one you will hear frequently th rough­

our rhe following chapters because the strength of each worldview we

exa mine also turns out to be its "Achilles' hed" when that insight is

absolutized. C onsumerism, for example, correctly reminds us that we

are finite beings who perish unless we consume at least some of ou r

environment's resources. Consumerisn1's big mistake, however, is that

it def ines us solely as physical, consuming beings. Stated otherwise,

consumerism is a reductionistic worldview because it absolutizes our

physical and economic dimensions and g ives insufficient attention to

remaining aspects of human existence. O th er worldviews, in turn, ab­

soluti ze some other h cet of our experience to the exclusion of others.

A s you mtty anticipate, then, part o f ou r arg ument is t hat C hristian­

ity avo ids and co rrect s the reduction isms of these competing system s

and offe rs a full -orbed ;'tccollnt of huma n life. Thus, we will find much

that we can consent to and learn from within non~Chri stia n world­

views. At the same time, we m",int",in that allY perspective that fails to

do justice to every G od-created dimension of human life canno t be

described as a Christian worldview. To put it in the language of Sire's

defmition , if "heart" refers to the whole person , w e mus t pursue a

wholehearted worldvi ew that avo ids reduct ionism.

Ii

WORLOVI EWS AS ST ORY

If Sire's definition of worldview as a " h eart orient ation," a set of com ­

m itments that encompasses the ent ire person, reveals one factor that

c1uffers up our task, his suggestion that worldviews can be told as a

stOfY di scloses :l second messy dement in our appro :l.ch. The usu:tl

mode of operation in worldvicw books is to compare and eva luate

propositional system s, which because they are system s, are neat and

orderly. Sto ries , o n the o ther hand, arc: no t guite as tidy. H owever, w e

bdicvt! that the concept of story as a metaphor for worldvicw is mo rc:

t rue- to- life than a recital of proposit ions that one believes to be tflU::,

for two reasons.

The first reason we prefer the concept o f worldview as story is that

we believe that our knowledge of God is revealed in a manner that is

more analogous to a narrative than a set o f propos itions. It does n't take

a deep investigation of Scripture to discover that it is not written as a

logically constructed, tightly interconnected and cross-referenced sys­

tem o f truthful propositions. We may certainly be able to distill from

the Bible sll ch a system, but it docs not come packaged in that way.

Instead, as we will develop in chapter ten, Scripture's overall structure

resembles an epic story stretching from creation to hi story's COllSUln ­

mation, encompassing smaller stories of C od's inrcraction with people

over a broad span of years and cultural contexts . This bigger na rrative

of G od's involvement with us, what we will Gtll "God's story," provides

the foundation on which we attempt to di sce rn a Christian worldvicw

and the broad horizon against which we all live our individuallives (or

stories).

Second, in add ition to G od's revelat ion coming in a manner similar

to story, our worJdvicws unfold in a storylikc manner. C onsider how we

come to know others. Vve do no t di scover who someone really is byask­

ing for a set of proposirions they assent to , although this may playa

part. Instead , we gain insight into a person's identity by learning where

the), come from , key life experiences, what they love, what sorts of re­

lat ionships they have and a multitude of o ther storylike features. While

we may talk about these matters in propos itional terms, even these

propositions are products of our expe riences. Thus, while propositional

18 H IDDEN \VO IU.DVTEWS

belie fs are an essentia l aspect of worldview examinat ion, these spring

from the messy process that we will ca ll "OliT sto ry."

OUR STORY ANO WORl OVI EW FORMAT ION

At birth, we arrive in a world filled with competing visions of pu rpose,

truth and goodness, and we experience them in a mulritude of ways.

W orld views come at us, not as fully-formed systems of interrelated

ideas, but in bits and pieces. We encounter them through national her­

itage, religion, fam ily influence, the educat ional system, peer g roups ,

various med ia and countl ess additional sources. They are transmitted

by these sources through such d ive rse fo rms as mu sic, polit ical speeches,

advert ising, unsolicited adv ice from friend s o r family and, yes, via our

coffee-at-Sta rbucks conversations. And sometimes what is not sa id ex­

plicitly in these different modes of communication shapes our world­

views as much as wh at is sa id . In short, t hese influences arc so pervasive

throughout cultu re that we may not even sec them at all.

M oreover, world view for mation , like a story, is not a st:uic affair.

Every good narr:\tive, including our own, has a dy namic quality. Like

stories, lives have a beginning, a middle and an ending that include

spec ific contexts, un ique characters, plot twists, conflic ts or crises,

alo ng with resolut ions that set up the next episode. A s a resu lt, even

when the fundamental ou tl ines of our world view hold up over a li fe­

time, the detail s go through modificat ions based on our psychologica l

development , new events or rel ationships, exposure to new ideas o r a

num ber of other factors.

A s the story unfolds, however, the sequence, actors and plot develop­

ment are only the most visible features. In rea lity, our stories :ire struc­

tured, in large part. by fo rces that reside beneath the surface. My actions

manifest the subterranean influence of my sel f-understanding, my convic­

tions and my values. Things that happen to me and around me, many of

them beyond my immediate control, provide the setting for my story.

Nevertheless, what occurs in the various chapters, what my character be­

comes, is also molded by what I believe and value. Thus, in t.h e following

diagram we w ill trace the components of our story, our ·worldview, as they

radiate from our interior stories toward ex ternal express ion and action.

Sia n

Idend! II

COIl\'i.:riolls

ValutsiElhics

!\'loralsiActions

SroTy: 1'1...: cemral narr:uillC of ou r life

IdeOTi l~': How we ~e ourstlvts "od prrsenr our~I"u ro others

Com-iel io",: ThoK beliefs that mak" up how Tralltyworks for us

Valut'siEdlics: \<Vh(l{ we bel ieve we sho uld do a nd wn:lt we !:Ike to be' Ollr highest pr iorilies

.Morals/Act ions: TIle re:llm o f d oing lhul indudcs all of o ur activ ities

Figure 1. Tra n~formati on mDdtl (developed by Dr. S teve Gree n)

STORY: MOV IN G TOWARD ACTION

19

In the opening scene of Fiddler 011 the Roof, Tevye sa.ys that, because of

tradit ion, "everyone knows who he is ," That is what our story does; it

gives us an ident ity. The ident ity level of our being encompasses such

th ings as our concept of success o r whe re we believe we fit into the scheme

of things. In the myri ad of relationships-with G od, myself, others and

the physical world- my story provides an interpretive grid that expresses

the importance and value of the various "others" I encounter. If my iden­

tity is invested in fi na ncial well-being rather that' in friendsh ips, J may

not th ink twice about a long-distal,ce relocation when offe red the dream

job with a fat raise, even ifit means leaving long-term friendsh ips. H ow-

20 H I D DEN \VO IU.DV TE WS

ever, if my identity has been closely connected with Iny job starus and

financial well-being for some rime, it is unlikely that I will have many

real friendships to consider when the job offer comes. The definition o f

success within a consumerist worldview will be much different from

someone whose story emphasizes enduring relationships.

Closely intertwined with ollr identity is what we call our conv Ic­

ti ons. Our convictions might be viewed as a di stillation o f ou r story as

it is filtered through our sense of identity into a system of propos itions

that forms the ideological framework for our story. These convictio ns

play a central role in O tlf story becau se we believe them to be true de ­

script ions of what Sire's definitio n refers to as "the basic constitution o f

reality." They express ollr ideas abo ut what the whole world is like, how

it works, the means by which we understand it p roperly, and what its

purpose is .

These conviction s arc vital because they describe how we underst and

and interpret the world . It is the m eans by which we articulate our

worldview. We can illustrate this by contrasting the convictions o f a

sc ient ific naturalis t with a Christian thei st . A s we will see below, sc i­

entific naturalism's centtal convictions arg ue that the world is a closed

system, co ntaining nothing more than physical components whose in­

teractions arc detetm.ined by ironclad, absolute laws. This rules out the

existence of any nonphysical realit y, G od included. By contrast, the

Christian theist views the world as open to the activity a fG od. For the

theist , then, the laws that govern nature o rig inate fro m G od and pro­

vide an accurnte descripti on of physical interactions within creation.

However, since thcse laws arc c reations o f G od, they arc not absolute.

Realities exist that transcend such laws.

Thus, the stories behind a naturalist's and a theist's convictions dif­

fer radic;llly. Both m ay see the same facts, but the convictions that shape

their respective interpretations of these facts are quite different. In fact,

it is not an overstatement to say that a naturalist and a theist cou ld live

in the same house and, at the same time, inhabit two entirely different

univer ses. What exists {and does not ('xist) in my universe, the means

by which it is known m ost accurately, my place in this universe , and a

host of other questio ns will have answ ers that a re molded by my conv ic-

21

tions. I f! change my convictions, my world, at least as I experience it,

changes with them,

Convictional bel iefs about the nature of reality and how that real­

ity is known radiate outward co shape our eth ics (what we believe we

should or should no t do) and values (what we take to be priorities).

What is the good or right way to live? vVhich mor;).1 principles, if any,

are nonnegot iable? '¥hich :lrc relative or conditional? Which values

should mark the pr ior ities that sh ape who we arc :md how we usc o ur

time? To illustrate, we freq uently say that we do not have enough time

for something. In reality, these statements are rarely true. If we are

honest, "not enough time" can almost always be translated as, "I did

not do that because it was not a high prio rity." Someone committed to

an individu :.d istic wo rldview will find t ime fo r different things than

we wou ld see on a ew Ager's schedule. S imilarly, the highest ethical

loyalties of a nationalist wm vary significantly from those of a com­

mitted Christian.

Finally, ou r ethics shapes ou r actions. This is the realm of doing that

includes activities from our vot ing p:l.tterns to our use o f money to the

time we spend with family, and everything in between. This is the part

of our stories that is most evident to those around us, and it is certainly

how most people start to learn what we think of ourselves, what ethical

principles we embrace, and what convict ions govern our lives. In short,

our behaviors arc the stage on which we play out our sto ries.

Now that we have reached the o uter byer of ollr stories, two things

should become evident as we think about the rdatio nsh ip between our

actions, which fo rm the m ore public face t o f our lives, and the interior,

more private aspects of our stories. The fi rst was hinted at above; our

actions do not exist in a vacuum , disconnected from other aspects of

life. There is, as the saying goes, much more to us than meets the eye.

Second, it seems clear that our visible act ions are not always consistent

with those other p~trts of o ur lives that don't "meet the eye." \ "'hat I do

is not always congruent with what 1 believe. In fact , an important

premise of this book is that what we believe, ual/ybelieve, i" not always

congruent with what we say we believe or think we want to believe.

One can , for example, profess Christianity and live like an individua\-

22 H I D DEN \VO IU.DV TE WS

isr. We probably ought to fix that, and a careful evaluation o f our world­

view can be an important part of that fix.

A CON GR UENT STOR Y

Several years ago a fa scinating story hit the new s about a seventy-three­

year-old Catholic woman, E leanor Boyer, who had won the New Jersey

State lotte ry. After federal and state taxes were deducted, she had over

eigh t million dollars left. We don't know your financial situation, but

this is a sum sufficient to capture our attention. So is the amount o f

money th is wo man gave away. In fac t , she gave it all away-ro her

church and to organ izatio ns in h er town that helped people in need.

When the reporter asked her why she donated all the winnings, her

respo nse was "God takes ca re of me."

I fwe would pas te our own pictu re into rhi s sto ry, we quick ly recog­

nize how difficult it is to bring congruity to our worldview.l\1any peo­

ple arc quick to say that G od w ill provide for their needs or that it

would be wrong to spend money extravagan tly when it could provide

life-saving relief to people in dire need . Yet ou r actions, if we would

receive an unexpected, after-tax eight-million-doHar windfa ll, may not

have as much congruency with statements made about our convictions

before we hit the jackpot as t hose o f the woman above. This example,

and m illions o f ot hers we could create, reminds us of t he vast difference

between what we call conjim ional beliefs, ideas that remain exclu sively

on the intellectual level, and cOllviclional beliefs, belief.<; that are re­

flected in our actio ns .

C areful worldview examination requires that we constantly hold up

our convictions against the mirror of our actions to sec where our con­

fessional beliefs arc incongruous w ith our convictional beliefs . C hris­

tians often find it mllch easier to talk a good game by reciting the right

creeds and embracing the proper doctrinal statements than to actually

live by the pr inciples embodied in them. But Christians arc not the o nly

people susceptible to incongruity (or hypocr isy, if you prefer that word).

In extreme circumstances , scientific n aturalists may fmd themselves in

prayer to G od. A moral relativist may live as if universa l m oral standards

do exist. Regardless of one's worldview, it is important to integrate what

23

we:: say we believe :lnd what we actually do. This is not possible unless we

live reflectively, carefu lly examining both our ideas and actions to see if they arc in sync. That is, then, one of our main tas ks in this book.

A second reaso n to subject various world views to rigorous examina­

tion brings l1 S back to the more traditiona l apologeti c task of contrast­

ing a C hristian worldview with competing id eas. Christ ians wi ll agree

tha t it is o ften difficult to live a life that is consistent with o ur conv ic­

tions. At the same time, they should also agree th at (1) the ccntr:l1

convict iom of a C hristian world view are consistent with each other and

(2) acti ng in accordance with C hristian convict ions yields good resu lts

in our lives. W e don't believe that either is the case with the competing

world views we exam ine in this book. For example, a bed rock belief for

moral relativ ism is that no uni versally valid moral principles ex ist.

H owever, a second relativist conviction is that we should be to ler:mt of

those 'whose moral views differ from ours. The glaring contrad iction

h ere is that the demand of tolerance by all and for all is a moral stan­

dard that is inconsistent with the relativist's claim that no universal

moral standards exist. Th is is certai n ly in tens ion with (I ) above, which

argues that a worldview should be internally consistent.

1\10ral relativism also runs afoul of (2 ), which says that living out

one's worldview sh ould lead to beneficial results. We will argue that

moral relativ ists really don't live out the fi rst conviction (no universal

mora l principles exist), and it is a good th ing they don't. T he logical

outcome of th is convict ion is dog-eat-dog chaos, not exac tly the type of

benefic ial resu lt we look for in a good world view. In sum , then , we

encourage reflection on a ~er ies of worldviews because it can reveal

their logica l o r practical flaws, and hopefu lly help us avoid them.

Our third reason for vigilance about worldview incongruities is spe­

cific to oll r ta sk of helping Christians develop a C hrist ian worldview.

Without retl ection, ideas contrary to a C hristian worldview creep into

our convictional beliefs, and we might not even realize it. The problem

here is that, wh ile confessional bdiefs exist on the conscious level

(which must be the case if we "confess" them), many of our conv ict ionai

bel iefs work on the subconscious level, as Sire's world view definition

rem inds us. W e m ay not be aware of what our t rue convict ions are, but

24 HID DEN \VOIU.DVTEWS

that does not make them less real or determinative for our lives. Thus,

a careful examination of postmodern tribalism , for example, might re ­

veal arC:lS where Christians have allowed un-Chr istian ideas about race,

gender or national superiority to infiltrate their worldvicw. Or, as il­

lustrated above, considering how we might handle an unforeseen cash

windfall might show us that, despite o ur claims to worship God alone,

we have become mammon-worshiping consumer ists. Therefore, Ch ri s­

tians need to learn what these competing storic s sa)'. In doing so , we

can discover how our convictions have been shaped by worldviews that

are incompatible with what we want to bel ieve. Without carefu l, con­

sciolls reflection, our Christian story can easily be hijacked by al ien

stories that take our lives in directions we don't want to go , B ecause

what we are not conscious of can hurt us, it is important to take an in ­

ventorv of ou r true convictions,

Each of the world views in this book is part of the cultural air we

breathe, M oreover, each of these worldviews has the power to distort

our Christiansrory, a power that grows in proport ion to o ur lack o f

:\wareness o f its influence, Paul reminds liS of this in R omans 12:2

when he states, "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this

world." Aioll, the word translated as "'world," is more literally translated

"age." The "pattern of this age" refers ro the dominant ways o f think­

ing, the stories , that shape the world arou nd us. Paul is not, therefore,

ta lking abollt avoiding any part icular kind of activities. H e warns us

against a deeper, more pervasive danger, t he danger o f conforming to a

story that differs from G od's story for us.

TR ANS FORMATION TO GOO'S STORY

Paul's antidote to conformity to the "patterns of this age" is found in the

last part of the verse: "but be transformed by the renewing of your

mind. Then you will be able to te st and approve what G od's will is-his

good, pleasing and perfect wil!." Instead of conforming to the stories of

our age, Paul says that we need to be transformed to G od 's story, G od 's

"good, pleasing and pedect w ilL" This raises a point that is too o ften

fo rgotten. The wocldvicw of:\ Christ ian, if it is to remain a Christi an

worldview, needs to be set \vith in G od's sto ry.

26 HID DEN \VO IU.D VTEW S

but needs to occur within the contex t of a community. ]n fact, this book

itself was birthed out of d iscussions on these matters within adult Bible

classes and unive rsity discipleship g roups. Without all three dements­

mento ri ng, reflective fellowship and worldvic:w formation- the c:ver­

present non-Christian worldviews begin to work theif corrosive effects

on ollr lives.

I n the following chapte rs, we will exam ine eight sto rics, widespread

within American culture, that compete with a Christian worldvic\\'.

They are, to so me ex tent, artific ial constructio ns; probably no person

alive exemplifies any of t hese types in a pure form. These influences, as

we have said, com e at li S in fragments from muhiple directions, and

most real lives are a composite of these forces. Chr ist ians are not ex­

empt from this. and this premise stands at the heart o f thi s book. Our

worldview, if we live an unexamined life, can be adulte rated by h idden

dements that dilute and corrupt it.

As we evaluate these cornpeting stories, we will focus heavily on the

character istic convictions of each worldview. This intellectual compo­

nent is necessary becausc, as we havc seen above, our convictions playa

central role in ollr world views. H owever, it will be impor tant to re­

member that the stakes are much higher than simply a co ntest about

which ideology comes out the winner. Worldviews are ultimately about

full -orbed . multid imensio nal, rea l human lives , and how we can get the

most from them. In short, as we will say often in the following chap­

ters , all worldviews are ultimately ahou t salvation, even if they don't use

that \1ocabulary.

The Christian worldview places an extremely high value on life,

which is the reason it is so deeply interested in salvation. l flife is valu­

able, it makes sense to examine the stories that shape our lives to make

certain we experience the abundance God desires for them. To this

end. we will close the book with two chapters about Christian world­

views. The first (chapter ten ) outlines the contours of a Christ ian

worldview in a narrative form and explores places where it differs fro m

the others examined in this tex t. Our fina,1 chapter (chapter eleven)

explores the question of how o ne develops and nurtures a real-life,

whole-life worldv iew.

25

Paul clearly indicates that the kind of transformation that aligns us

with G od's story has to impact our minds. By this, however, he is no t

just speaking of a collection of confess ional beliefs. As we have seen,

what we claim to believe does not always transfo rm our lives. Instead,

the renewal of our minds envisions a transformation of our whole

beings- our intellects, wills, desires, relationships and spirituality (and

thu s encompasses what Sire ea rlier refers to as "heart"). Paul 's call for a

rcncw:ll of the mind st :lnds in contrast to most Christian preach ing and

teaching , which is focused on changing the outermost circle of our

story- the behavioral level. VI/hile the actions of the Christian should

undergo a transformative process, changing behaviors alone is no t

transformation. It attacks the symptoms rather than the disease. ] n the

end, behavioral change is a pale counterfeit of:l whole-person transfor­

mation that works from the mind outward.

Transformation that docs not involve the mind comes at a h igh cost.

Steve Garber's book The Fabric a/Faithf ulness asked a probing question:

"Why do some Christians leave college, and five to ten years later they

have also left Christianity? Why do o the r C h ristians complete college

and continue to integrate their Christian faith with a new set of life

circumstances?" His findings were fascinating. Without exception,

those 'who successfully integrated fa ith with life followed three prac­

tices . They developed a relat ionship with a mentor who pract iced an

act ive Christian life . Second, they met regularly with peers who were

deeply committed to living out their Christianity. Finally, they had

developed a C hristian worldview sufficient to meet the challenges of

the competing worldviews they encountered a fte r leaving college.

Our book's eye is obviou sly foclIsed on the third critical element that

Garber identifies. ' '''hen our minds do not undergo continuing trans­

formation through reflection on om entire life, om stori es inevitably

deviate from G od's plotline. H owever, development of a Christian

worldvic::w sufficient to meet the challenges of the competing world­

views is not unrelated to the first two factors noted by Garber. Our

relation ships frame the context of our stories, and it is with in the ac­

countability of such relationships that we align our stories to G od's

story. Our examination oflife should not just be an individual endeavor

28 HID DEN \VO IU.DV TEW S

celebrates the individu al who creates his o r her own unique path. Thus,

like the other lived worldviews in this book, individualism does not re ­

ally find its or igins in:.m intellectual system, but as a type of story about

who we should be.

Perhaps the best analysis of American individualism today is found

in the book Habits 0/ thl! HenrI written by Robert Bellah and his col-

1t:agucs. Habits refers to two distinct types of individual ism, both com­

mon in Amer ican culture. The first form is "utilitarian individu:tlism."

Utilitarian individualism has been a dominant force in America since

its founding and has often fueled the quest fo r the "American Dream."

This version of individualism focu ses on personal achievement and ma­

terial success, and believes that the social good automatically follows

from the individual pursuit of one's own interests. Thus, the utilitarian

ind ividualism does no t necessa rily reject the structures and rules of so­

ciety. I nstead, they arc viewed primarily as guidel ines or tools that help

the individua l work efficiently within the system. In other words, there

is a willingness to accept certain restr ictions on personal behavior, such

as laws prohibiting bribery, because a system that requires honest busi­

ness deal ings ultimately benefits those who work hard.

The second fo rm Bellah identifies, "expressive individualism," is a

reaction to the limitations of utilitarian individualism. While the latter

generally advises that we pursue individual success by con formity to the

rules and common practices of soc iety, expressive individll :l lism wor­

ships the freed om to express our lIni'lueness against constraints and

conventions. Because rules and social conventions encourage confor­

mity, they arc viewed as a threat to personal expression :md individual­

ity. The danger is that we will be absorbed into the herd. Thus, libera­

tion and fulfi llment are central themes in expressive individualism and

find articulation in statements like "J need to be free to be me." Free­

dom becomes the rationale for reducing any responsibilities perceived

as limitations to my personal autonomy o r fu lfillment, whether those

responsibilities are social, moral, relig ious or fami ly duties. Where util­

itarian ind ividuali sm sees our social systems as a means for attaining

our individual goals, express ive individualism genera lly views these

system s as obstacles to individual freedom.