Christian
Worldview
|
|
|
A Critical Response to:
Building a Christian Worldview by Rev. Christopher C. Arch, M.A. Introduction: In
their book Building a Christian
Worldview, vol. 1, W. Andrew
Hoffecker and Gary Scott Smith attempt to demonstrate the importance of
worldviews and epistemologies in the basic thought processes of peoples
and cultures. Certainly Hoffecker
is correct when he states: "Underlying all that we think, say, or
do are basic assumptions that form what we call a worldview."
(1) These worldviews govern the way one considers life, thought, academic
disciplines, the arts, religion, politics, etc.
In fact, no topic is left out of consideration in relation to one's
worldview because every dimension of one's life; intellectual, physical,
social, economic, and moral, is governed by his or her worldview.
In
Building a Christian Worldview, Hoffecker and Smith explain several
basic worldviews while also trying to help the reader formulate his or
her own presuppositions about life. This is done, however, not by merely
examining the various philosophical systems or worldviews, but by placing
these views in their historical framework of chronology, thereby allowing
the reader to see the emergence and development of these ideologies on
the world's stage. Along with
this chronologically accurate overview, the editors divide the text into
two sections: the first focuses on the various worldviews as they relate
to arguably the most important, or at least individually and culturally
telling topics of study, theology and anthropology;
the second section explains the epistemological basis of the various
views. Thus, Hoffecker's stated
goal of "combining historical and topical approaches to enable us
to evaluate the interplay between ideas in their social settings and subsequent
development.", is met in the text. (2)
This method of evaluation enables the reader to see the fluid nature
of history, and especially the history of ideas, as brilliant men of old
(and some of modernity) impact not only their times but also influence
the thinking of subsequent generations. Strengths
of the text: Certainly
Hoffecker and Smith's work, Building
a Christian Worldview, has significant merit in various areas of study,
including: apologetics, philosophy, history, anthropology and theology.
Not only are the various contributing scholars accurate and adept
in the discussion of their assigned topic(s), they are able, for the most
part, to leave personal bias out of an explanation of the major tenets
of the differing worldviews. This
allows the reader to come to his or her own conclusions about the various
views or epistemologies by means of honest comparison, rather than subtle
manipulation. Hoffecker
and Smith identify the most significant worldviews in relation to their
contribution to Western culture and thinking.
These views include: Classical Greek Humanism, a divided Biblical
view focusing first on the Old Testament and later the New Testament,
a developing Christian view including Nicea, St. Augustine, and later
St. Thomas; the Reformation, the Renaissance, and finally Naturalistic
Humanism. Again, part
of the strength of the text is the fact that it outlines these various
views in relation to their chronological development and impact on at
least Western society. As
a result, Hoffecker and Smith wisely weave a history of thought that helps
to explain the development of the predominant Western worldviews. Another
strength of Building a Christian
Worldview, is its emphasis on epistemology.
Contributing to the text, V. James Mannoia defines epistemology as "the
quest for the source of certainty". (3)
In other words, this is the attempt to study and understand what
exactly is the nature of knowledge.
Epistemology attempts to distinguish between that which "is
certain and not simply belief, or opinion, or probability." (4)
Epistemology became almost an obsession in the era of the Renaissance
as Enlightenment man began to think he had liberated himself from the
constraints of a Heavenly Father.
It was during this period of Western Civilization that "pure
science" began to replace the prior "Queen of the sciences",
theology, as the preeminent field
of study. Although upon reflection
the quarrel was more with the illogical and unbiblical excesses and proclamations
of the Catholic Church, this "rebirth of reason" associated
with the Renaissance resulted in an attempt to discount much of Christianity
and revive classical Greek philosophies of humanism.
Thus, to a greater or lesser degree, the emphasis of the origination
of knowledge and knowing shifted from a theological to an anthropological
point of reference with the rise of Rationalism and Empiricism.
With this shift and emphasis on an anthropological point of reference,
according to Kant, "epistemology gave the mind of man the active
role of creating knowledge rather than the passive role of just discovering
it..." (5) Needless to
say, this emphasis has resulted to one degree or another, in the relegation
of God to the proverbial "broom closet" of not only the sciences,
but also the experiences of much of everyday life in Western society. Weaknesses
of the Text:
Depending
on the reader, one of the greatest strengths of Building
a Christian Worldview could easily be one of its greatest weaknesses.
Admittedly Hoffecker and Smith have not written a text that is
an easy read for either the average church member or the inquiring agnostic.
At times the book's emphasis on splitting the fine hairs of philosophical
ideologies becomes a tad bit tedious.
It is at least possible, and most likely probable, that the average
adult without a college education will be completely lost in a discussion
of, and relatively unconcerned with, the writings of Hume, Locke, Descartes,
or Kant. Thus, depending on
the audience, the highly technical and academically challenging nature
of the text could prove to be both a strength or a weakness.
Another
slight criticism of the text is found in the opening pages of the book.
Again, this criticism is relatively minute, being only a criticism
in its failure to further identify and illustrate an idea that it inspired
in this reader. On pages three
and four, Hoffecker introduces an idea that if further illustrated, would
have been greatly appreciated. Stating,
"Anthropocentric periods have been characterized by cultural fragmentation
and decline...because societies have lacked a unified and coherent foundation.",
Hoffecker seizes upon one of the most brilliant arguments of the text
in favor of a Biblical, or at least theistic, worldview. (6)
If this argument could have been further fortified with examples
from history supporting the positive benefit a culture receives when taking
a theocentric posture, as it undoubtedly could be,
the effect would have been monumental in its support of a Biblical
Christian worldview. However,
the effect of the argument was not unlike that of one's sampling of cotton
candy at the county fair: the exhilaration and excitement of the first
taste is almost immediately replaced by the evaporation of supportive
substance. Undoubtedly, and
arguably, this missing "substance" is exactly what Hoffecker
and Smith proceed to give the reader in the remainder of the text, though
developing over hundreds of pages.
Certainly the text could have provided a more immediate and lasting
pleasure had the author taken the time to illustrate this brilliant statement.
Another
minor criticism that can be leveled at this otherwise excellent work relates
to a few statements Smith wrote in chapter nine, Naturalistic
Humanism. After developing
a thoroughly insightful article on Naturalistic Humanism, and the various
intellectual and cultural dangers associated with this view, such as:
its inconsistency in defining and understanding
human nature as well as cosmic order, the promotion of moral relativism,
a repudiation of the belief in heaven or hell,
and a denial of personal immortality as well as the existence of
God; Smith then states that Christians should become "allied"
with humanists in promoting causes of mutual interest.
This statement seems to be naive at best, especially in light of
Hoffecker's assessment of the influence of one's worldview when he says,
"A person's view of God affects and reflects his or her belief about
human nature and its capacity to understand reality." (7)
It seems as though Smith would have been better suited to state
that Christians could at times become co-belligerents with humanists for
the promotion of a certain belief.
However, encouraging an "allied" relationship with a
group of people who hold virtually no core values in similarity with Biblical
Christianity carries the appearance of absurdity.
A
Brief Interaction with a Key Point of the Text: Hoffecker
and Smith have given the Christian community in specific, and the academic
community in general, an excellent text for the study of the chronological
development of worldviews and epistemology.
The difficult task in a review such as this is not attempting to
find significant points of interest to discuss, but rather, limiting the
points of interest to a manageable few.
With this in mind, the review will be limited to one significant
point of interest. One
of the most enjoyable and enlightening aspects of the text is its exploration
of the views held by two of the greatest theologians of antiquity, Augustine,
Bishop of Hippo, and Thomas Aquinas, the thirteenth century doctor of
the Catholic Church. Although
these men lived nearly eight hundred years apart, their respective theologies
had an inestimable influence on the Church.
Comparing the two men and their worldviews as well as the means
by which they developed their epistemologies is quite helpful in understanding
the background of the Protestant Reformation.
The
life experiences of these two giants of the Church could not have been
more different. Augustine
went through a series of crisis after crisis, seeking new philosophies
to follow while rejecting Christianity and leading a debauched life, until
his conversion at around thirty years of age.
Contrast this to Aquinas, who at the age of five was placed in
a Benedictine monastery to study and apprentice for the ministry. (8)
Later, however, Aquinas was removed from the monastery by his parents
and placed in the secular Augustine's
starting point of theology was the Holy Scriptures.
To him, the Bible was the written Word of God, that had been uniquely
and verbally inspired by the Lord. (9)
His approach was deductive, based on the authority of the Bible
(and to a degree the Church), believing that the Bible revealed the Trinitarian
nature of God in ways that Greek and Roman philosophy had not.
Thomas,
however, placed a greater emphasis on the "spiritualization"
of texts of Scripture, a practice with long precedence in the Catholic
Church. In the intervening eight hundred years between the two men, the
Catholic Church had freely intermingled Platonic with Biblical thought.
Thus, it was neither uncommon nor unusual that Aquinas would have himself
mixed Greek philosophy with Christian theology.
As a result, Thomas adopted and attempted to adapt Aristotelian
logic to Christian theology in hope of rescuing it from the pagan Muslim
philosopher Averroes. (10) Yet,
this influence led Aquinas to deny the ability to develop an accurate
view of God by using the Scriptures alone. " Instead, he used Scholastic
categories of thought , which were an adaptation of Greek rationalism,
in order to explain the Christian faith."
(11) Knowing
Aquinas' theological starting point was not a single-minded focus on the
Scriptures, it is easy to see where further differences developed between
himself and Augustine. Again,
being influenced by Greek philosophy, Thomas "advocated a popular
medieval principle call via negativa." (12) This
"way of negation" denied that man can know God's essence and
thus if we are to know Him, we must deny those qualities we believe to
be most inappropriate to Him. However,
at this point Aquinas demonstrates his decision to place human reason
above the written revelation of the Scriptures as the authority into the
Person of God. Thus, Aquinas
did not attempt to develop his view of God by a simple reliance upon the
Bible alone. Ultimately,
this difference between Aquinas and Augustine naturally leads to a discussion
of their various views of man. Focusing
primarily upon the Scriptures for his understanding of the nature of man,
Augustine drew differing conclusions than his thirteenth century counterpart.
Unlike the Greek philosophers that preceded him, Augustine argued
for the unity of the whole man, condemning any Platonic soul-body dualism.
Augustine believed that Adam had a free will, and prior to the
fall, was able to do right. However,
after the fall, the image of God was so marred in man due to sin, that
man's natural inclination was towards evil.
Sin, according to Augustine, was a result of unbelief, and not
a matter contained within the body.
Thus, after the fall, Adam not only lost his ability to do good,
but even his very moral judgment was affected as well as his very freedom.
(12) Augustine disagreed sharply
with the teaching of his contemporary, Pelagius, a British monk and teacher
who wielded great influence in Where
did Thomas Aquinas stand in relation to the gulf created by Augustine
and Pelagius on the issue of man's nature?
He stood squarely in the middle. Aquinas, using his Scholastic
Synthesism, attempted to blend the teaching of Aristotle, Augustine, and
Pelagius. From Aristotle,
Thomas argued for a union of the body and the soul.
Yet the real point of struggle, for which Thomas never fully gave
an answer, was how serious are the effects of original sin?
What effect does this have on the will?
What affect does this have on man's reason?
Yet, in the midst of this synthesis, Aquinas held to some of Augustine's
main doctrines such as original sin and salvation by God's grace.
Conversely, however, Aquinas also clung to Pelagian elements of
an unscathed reason, a partially debilitated will that remained morally
free in all choices except those requiring supernatural assistance, and
salvation being infused into man by God through the sacraments. (14) It
was the Catholic Church's view of salvation by infusion of the various
sacraments, and not by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ,
that ultimately led to Luther's Reformation.
It can be argued that Aquinas' synthesism of Pelagian, Augustinian,
and Aristotelian teachings helped to further bolster the Catholic Church
in its error with regard to not only the ultimate authority of the Scriptures,
but also the nature of God, the work of Christ, as well as the nature
of man. Thus, in part, the
Reformation was in some ways the logical result of a conflict between
the ideologies and views of Augustine and Thomas and those who would seek
to synthesize Biblical truth with error. It
should be stated that although Aquinas' synthestic approach to the nature
of man, God, and epistemology was flawed, apparently his motives were
good. His approach was an
attempt to make Christianity relevant to those within the Scholastic movement
by taking Aristotelian logic away from the "infidels", and demonstrating
the faith's ability to be reconciled with Greek philosophy and learning.
Yet, when truth is mixed with error, it is truth that becomes diluted.
This is exactly what transpired as a result of Aquinas' sythesism. The
Value and Significance of this Work: Building
a Christian Worldview
must be commended on various grounds.
In the text, Hoffecker and Smith have set a sturdy foundation upon
which can be built further investigative ventures and comparisons into
the history and impact of various worldviews and epistemologies.
This is especially helpful in that these views are placed in their
proper historical perspective. This perspective allows the serious student
to trace the natural rise and fall of various viewpoints while also determining
how and why certain groups of people at certain time periods thought the
way they did. Christians
in specific should demonstrate gratefulness to Hoffecker and Smith for
this work. Unlike most texts,
Building a Christian Worldview affords the concerned Christian the
opportunity to succinctly understand the operative and influential ideas
of various views in competition with Christianity.
Knowing how others think is essential to being able to effectively
share the message of Christ. Often
conversations between Christians and non-Christians fail to develop because
the conversation is on different planes.
By being informed of these various ideologies and epistemologies,
the interested and intentional Christian can bypass many
troublesome hurdles and engage their friends and acquaintances
more directly. Thus, the editors
must be applauded for their excellent and informative work that helps
the reader to better determine how various groups tackle the issues of
theology and anthropology. Having
tackled these monumental issues, and by further explaining how various
groups determine epistemology, Hoffecker
and Smith have given the Christian community a valuable tool in the battle
for the mind of the culture. Bibliography 1.
Elwell, Walter, Evangelical Dictionary
of Theology, (Hants, England: Baker Books, 1985). 2.
Hoffecker, W. Andrew, Building a
Christian Worldview, vol.1, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co., 1986). End Notes 1.
Hoffecker, p.ix 2.
ibid., p. xiv 3.
ibid., p. 261 4.
ibid., p. 261 5.
ibid., pp. 274-275 6.
ibid., pp. 3-4 7.
ibid., p. 185 8.
Elwell, p. 1091 9.
Hoffecker, p. 87 10.
ibid., p. 99 11.
ibid., p. 103 12.
ibid., p. 90 13.
ibid., p. 93 14.
ibid., pp. 107-108
Copyright © 2007 Good News Bible Church |