Your problem is not that you are poor or blind or lame (or even flooded). Your most pressing problem, really the only one you need to worry about, is sin. That, to me, was what Jesus constantly told people. The healings were gravy.

And so the answer to the question to “how do we fix it” really does start with “believe in Jesus.” Not necessarily for the afflicted person, but for me, the one who is trying to help. It is by believing in him that I can conform myself (totally imperfectly) to his example in engaging deeply with suffering, and find ways to solve the intractable problems of our time.

As a lefty Evangelical, I find that most of my brothers and sisters totally disagree with me on political worldview issues, so I sympathize with a lot of what is being said here.

That was much more helpful, thanks.

So take an issue like Hurricane Katrina: 1). Who are we? We are humans made in God’s image, now fallen, and living in Louisiana; 2). What went wrong? Well, New Orleans got flooded; 3). How do we fix it? Ummm, I’m not sure.

I guess I just don’t find this “worldview” talk all that helpful (and I obviously exaggerated above to make my point).

To really address the issue of the suffering there, we need to do more than answer that third question with “Believe in Jesus.” That is obviously the ultimate answer, but it would seem like an insult to someone holding a drowned kid in their arms. What about the neglected infrastructure of the city that contributed to the levees breaking? The weakened public sphere? The use of this disaster by capitalists to privatize New Orleans’s once-public housing and schools?

My worldview has something to say to these immediate and concrete questions. My faith only answers the eternal concerns (which are more important, but less pressing in the short run).

I think he has an awkward understanding of your idea of ‘worldview.’ And really, you’re right. Most of this thread begins with and trails off on semantic quibbles.

With that said, I’d like to explain that concept a bit. Pundit, “worldview thinking” in evangelicalism is not really a meshing together of neo-conservative politics or WASP culture with the Gospel. Ben’s repeated use of “interpretive framework” should clue you in to this. “Worldview thinking” of the Schaeffer/Colson variety is an approach to “truth” that answers three basic questions: 1) Who are we? 2) What went wrong? 3) How do we fix it? These are fairly meta-level questions which correspond generally to a creation-fall-redemption reading of history. Applying this hermeneutic to Scripture, a single “Christian worldview” becomes evident. That is, Christians answer these questions in a way that can be distinguished (with some clarity) from the answers of Buddhists, Muslims, Scientologists, Mormons, Sikh, Secular Humanists, etc.

The collection of answers to those three questions form a cohesive structure that can be called a “worldview” which is the “lens” through which one interprets or reads (and sometimes evaluates) all cultural phenomena.

Now whether or not this approach is wise or valuable is an open question, I think. There are a number of problems I have with it, but that’s neither here nor there.

Your concern that Ben not equate the Gospel with something like the war in Iraq would be warranted… if that had anything to do with worldviews. But I don’t think he’s doing that, intentionally or otherwise.

I think that Ben’s general point in this peace was that the democratization of the Church’s goals is a threat to the mission of the Church. With that I’ve no objection – though I have some significant disagreements with the way he outlines the alternative. (Which is why I said I disagree with both of you.)

So, to combat his point, I questioned his use of the term, “worldview,” and pointed out that Christians who agree on the basic framework of a Christian worldview must agree on Scriptural essentials but can disagree on certain issues not specifically addressed in Scripture.

Now it seems that the caricature is that I don’t think Scripture has anything helpful to add to discussions about areas like foreign policy. Again, not true.

Of course I believe there are certain things all Christians must agree to if they are true Christians.

And I think there are some things Scripture gives no guidance on whatsoever and we’re allowed to disagree.

And I think that there are many issues Scripture doesn’t specifically address, but our Christian worldview is an interpretive framework that gives us principles to help make wise and God-glorifying decisions. These are areas where Christians can still disagree, but should be able to carefully show how Scripture informs and guides their thinking.

The problem here is that my article was designed to talk about the cultural obsession with opinion and the Christian response, so it’s not really a fair place to attack my view of Christian ideological freedom. I assure you, it is much more developed and nuanced than the caricatures would suggest.

You’re right, not saying everything is different than saying nothing at all.

But if you believe in Sola Scriptura, then you believe that the Bible is authoritative for those things it addresses, while other things that it may touch on with some general principles are decided by appeal to extra-biblical sources.

Take your example: I am against war, generally speaking. But what do we do with the majority of American Christians who differ on that point?

I would say that we agree on “the faith” (which Ben misdefined above, taking it in its subjective sense [Hebrews] rather than in its objective sense [Jude] which I am using), but we have differing worldviews.

And make no mistake, my worldview is radically different from almost all Christians I have ever met.

Which is disheartening, but understandable.

To be sure, foreign policy is no simple matter, and the developments and insights of political science have much to contribute to the subject. And Scripture certainly does not say everything about the subject (for example, whether or not an isolationist policy is appropriate or ethical). But the fact that Scripture does not speak exhaustively on a subject does not mean that it does not speak at all.

Therefore, I disagree in different ways with both Ben and Pundee.

Christians can have the same interpretive framework (humans are basically sinful, God is in control, our mission on earth is to proclaim the gospel) and yet differ on how that framework should play itself out in certain areas scripture does not speak about (foreign policy, fiscal approach, role of government).

However, to differ on key matters of faith (Christ died to save sinners) is to hold to different faiths altogether.

So then, we call non-believers TO repent, come to Christ for forgiveness, and live their lives in submission to God’s will, proclaiming his gospel.

We call them AWAY from pursuit of selfish ends and desires.

We call them TO an interpretive framework (worldview) based in the truth of Scripture (non-negotiable) to help them figure out how to approach life (negotiable when Scripture is silent on an issue).

We call them AWAY from an interpretive framework based in human perfectibility, nihilism, or atheism.

What I am saying in the article is that we should recognize the danger of culture’s heavy emphasis on personal opinion, because we as Christians recognize that the glorification of selfish preference is affirmation of a non-christian worldview.

This makes much more sense, since a worldview that does not deal directly with war, economics, or foreign policy isn’t worth much. I mean, those are, like, some pretty important issues in the world, right?

To put it another way, if two people share the same worldview, while one is a socialist lefty and the other is a free market warrior on terror, it pretty much makes the so-called “worldview” that they share pretty thin, and of little import.

I’m afraid your definition of worldview is simply wrong. Nowhere do I say that we as Christians call people to a different opinion about foreign policy.

A worldview is an interpretive framework based on your understanding of the truth. However, that framework does not exhaustively determine how you should handle every discernment issue under the sun. A Christian worldview does not demand that someone accept a particular foreign policy, but it DOES demand a particular understanding of justificiation.

Acceptance of the scriptural worldview simply means believing that the biblical message, centered in and on the gospel, is entirely true. After that, your view of the world is based on your understanding of truth. However, that fact does not prevent you from being wise in various areas, and in fact it does not prevent Christians from disagreeing on a wide variety of areas.

My point is simply to compare and contrast self-centeredness and god-centeredness, not to suggest that all Christians must have perfect agreement on issues Scripture doesn’t even speak about.

You say that “To be a Christian is to accept the truth of the scriptural worldview in its entirety,” but then you say that “I am merely saying that Christians are to call the world AWAY from the self-centeredness of individual preference and TOWARD submission to the gospel as presented in Scripture.”

Again, you are the one equivocating here. Which one is it?

I agree that we are to call people away from self-centeredness into submission to Christ, but the Bible calls this a great commission to preach “the faith once for all delivered to the saints,” not “accepting a scriptural worldview in its entirety.”

A “worldview” is just that — a view that encompasses the way we see the world, which would include politics, economics, war, &c.

To say that there is a Christian view on all these things is to cry “wolf!” while holding an open Bible. Once it is said to directly apply to foreign policy (which it doesn’t), it will be a matter of time before people roll their eyes when we say it applies to, say, justification.

I think you are setting up a false comparison.

“glorification of individual preference” suggests that fulfillment of individual desire is the highest goal.

“the gospel as an alternate worldview,” as I make clear throughout the article, is submitting to the Truth as proclaimed by God in Scripture. To be a Christian is to accept the truth of the scriptural worldview in its entirety.

It may seem at times like a majority of people who claim the Christian worldview take particular stands on various political issues, but I am not saying that at all. I am merely saying that Christians are to call the world AWAY from the self-centeredness of individual preference and TOWARD submission to the gospel as presented in Scripture.

The fact that some unwise Christians use the idea of the “Christian worldview” incorrectly does not make my correct usage of it wrong as well.

Which is it?

It seems to me that very problem is that we “present the gospel as a worldview” that includes a bunch of stuff the Bible fails to mention (like aggressive US foreign policy, the glories of the free market, and a distrust of welfare and its recipients).

Like it or not, these right-wing talking points are hard to distinguish from the part of about the cross and empty tomb when the gospel is “preached as a worldview” by American Christians.