Is Worldview Thought Still Relevant?

Author's Note: The follow article was published yesterday in The Worldview Bulletin - a tremendous resource with links to contemporary news, articles, and worldview thoughts by leading authors and thinkers.  I invite and encourage you to check them out and subscribe to their bulletins and newsletters - Worldview Bulletin link 

The Contemporary Importance of Worldview Thought

Since the first-edition publication of James Sire’s The Universe Next Door in 1976, worldview thought has been a prominent fixture in western evangelicalism.  Christian leaders and teachers have acknowledged the tremendous benefits that worldview awareness and analysis provides in discipleship and spiritual growth, resulting in a veritable boom in Christian worldview exploration and publication—Walsh & Middleton’s The Transforming Vision; Goheen & Bartholomew’s Living at the Crossroads; Wilkens & Sanford’s Hidden Worldviews; Myers & Noebel’s Understanding the Times; Sire’s Naming the Elephant; the list goes on.  Worldview-oriented ministries have also blossomed—Summit Ministries; Probe; Worldview Academy; Leadership University, etc. 

But the rising prominence of worldview thought has also prompted skepticism and opposition from a range of Christian thinkers—including the influential public intellectual James K. A. Smith at Calvin College.  Critics charge that “traditional worldview studies” are reductionistic, and “lack explanatory power and often misinterpret people.” (Noble, A Disruptive Witness, 52-53) For his part, Smith’s primary charge is that worldview is overly rationalistic, and miss the reality that human habits (virtues) are shaped not by right thinking but by right loves/liturgy (see Smith, Desiring the Kingdom, 17ff; idem., Imagining the Kingdom, 9ff).   

John Dominic Crossan and Post-Modern Structuralism - Part II of II

Jon posted a very thoughtful comment and question in response to my article on John Dominic Crossan.

First, Jon's question .

Jon said...

"...Crossan believes that there is no history beyond language—history is not a concrete reality consisting of actual past events, but rather is constructed through language about past events."

Can you provide a quote from Crossan to support this? While I do not have a great familiarity with Crossan or structuralism, what little I have read seems very inconsistent with your argument here. That is, they do not deny that there is a reality and history independent of language, but that our understanding of history and reality are dependent upon and limited to the structure of our language(s).

Very well put, Jon.  

In my last post, I outlined Crossan's views on language, metaphor, history, and reality.  Now, I'd like to expand upon that, and consider how Crossan's structuralism impacts his historical Jesus research, particularly his study of Jesus's resurrection.  Again, this material is derived from my dissertation, which is accessible here.

John Dominic Crossan & Post-Modern Structuralism, Part I of II

Jon posted a very thoughtful comment and question in response to my article on John Dominic Crossan.  I'd like to take opportunity to expand on it - to bring his question out, and provide further discussion of Crossan's understanding of language, history, and reality, and to consider the implications of that understanding upon historical Jesus research.

First, Jon's question .

Jon said...

"...Crossan believes that there is no history beyond language—history is not a concrete reality consisting of actual past events, but rather is constructed through language about past events."

Can you provide a quote from Crossan to support this? While I do not have a great familiarity with Crossan or structuralism, what little I have read seems very inconsistent with your argument here. That is, they do not deny that there is a reality and history independent of language, but that our understanding of history and reality are dependent upon and limited to the structure of our language(s).

Very well put, Jon.  I'm thankful for thoughtful readers!

On that blog post, I responded with a brief citation from my dissertation (which can be found here.).  I mentioned that structuralism (like much of postmodernism) is essentially contested: there is wide disagreement among proponents and opponents alike as to what structuralism means and looks like.  Nonetheless, I am confident that I represented Crossan's views fairly.  

Here, I'd like to include a longer section of my dissertation - I think this is a fascinating subject, and I hope these thoughts are instructional and illuminating.  I'll include two sections, in two different posts.  First, this post will outline Crossan's views; tomorrow, I'll post a consideration of how these views impact historical Jesus research and the resurrection particularly.

Postmodernism & Truth

Truth Considered & Applied: Examining Postmodernism, History, and Christian Faith. By Stewart E. Kelly. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2011, 376 pp., $29.99 paper.

Stewart Kelly, professor of philosophy at Minot State University (North Dakota), has written a helpful treatise on historical knowledge and truth in a postmodern age.  Kelly divides Truth Considered & Applied into three parts, corresponding to three major questions.  (1) What is postmodernism?  (2) Given postmodernism, is genuine historical knowledge still possible?  (3) How should we think about truth?

The End of Apologetics, Part II - Critical Analysis

Penner, Myron Bradley. The End of Apologetics: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. 180 pp. $19.99.

                       

In my last blog post, I summarized the primary arguments of Myron Penner’s The End of Apologetics, a polemic diatribe opposing the modern apologetic enterprise.  Penner’s overarching thesis is that in our postmodern context, apologetic endeavors mired in the concerns and paradigms of Enlightenment modernity are doomed to failure.  Having outlined the contours of his book, I would like, in this post, to engage in a spirited critique of his thought, method, and means.

The End of Apologetics is among the most challenging, perplexing, and frustrating books that I have read in recent memory.  While there are helpful elements to Penner’s treatise (e.g., the emphasis on person-relative sensitivity in apologetic conversation; the importance of how, not just what, we believe, share, and proclaim), the positives are greatly outweighed by the negatives. 

The End of Apologetics, Part I - Summary

Penner, Myron Bradley. The End of Apologetics: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. 180 pp. $19.99.

                       

In this brief two-part series, I will interact extensively with Myron B. Penner’s The End of Apologetics, published in 2013 by Baker Academic.  The primary content of these blog posts has previously been published in Philosophia Christi 17.1 (2015): 241-47.  In this initial blog essay, I will summarize the primary thrust and arguments in Penner’s book, and in my follow-up I will engage in a spirited critique of his work.

Myron Penner earned his Bachelor and Master’s degrees at Liberty University before completing a Ph.D. at the University of Edinburgh.  He has served on faculty at Prairie Bible College (Three Hills, Alberta, Canada), and as an Anglican priest in my hometown, Edmonton, Alberta.  Penner currently is pastor of Trinity International Church in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia.  The End of Apologetics is Penner’s polemic diatribe opposing the modern apologetic enterprise, exemplified (for Penner) most clearly by William Lane Craig.  Penner’s overarching thesis is that in our postmodern context, apologetic endeavors mired in the concerns and paradigms of Enlightenment modernity are doomed to failure—indeed, they are a “curse,” and the one who utilizes them “is a second Judas who betrays the Christ.” (9)  To replace Craig’s modern apologetics, Penner advocates a post-modern Christian witness that edifies by adhering to an ethic of belief and witness.