Worldviews are things that never truly dies, but continue to evolve into increasingly complicated and developed modes of thinking. They certainly have roots, in this case, a religious one, but the building on top of the foundation is constantly in flux. Like a tree, it is adapted for the weather, the particular climate, the situation around it, and etc , so much so that there cannot be a "one size fits all" mentality. In fact, this is because worldviews are not categorical. They are not "epistemological systems" complete and whole in itself. They continue to evolve and are subject to other epistemological systems, in fashion or out, convincingly proved or traditionally reared, and to, probably, personal temperament as well. As we continue to learn more things about the World and God, we must subject our existing worldviews into rigorous and even harsh critique, lest we stop and block out the world behind our subjective veils.
However, I do have a bit of difficulty actually defining what a worldview is, and though I supply a definition, if my definition is correct, I need to seriously rethink what it means to have a Christian worldview. A worldview is based purely on intellectual assent and not emotional bent. It is based on an affirmation, a non-negotiable point of origin, upon which all other assents build upon. The fundamental point of origins for this worldview is strictly rational. It is an intellectual exercise entombed in a system, which must assimilate or reject (but even in its rejection, it is affected since it must form additional assents in order to reject other worldviews in the first place - perhaps a better word is a negative acceptance) other worldviews in which it comes into perpetual contact. As such, the system, and like a tree, we add or cull, chop off dying and dead branches, and graft others. If we see a worldview as born of intellectual assent, and carrying through with the same, we must reject the label of Christianity as worldview because the foundation of Christianity is not intellectual assent, but faith, and Christianity itself makes the claim as being transcendent truth, granted, alloyed by historical contingency, but still carrying the germ of that transcendental truth.
This does not mean that there are no emotional effects because of this worldview. In fact, it seems to me that a strong worldview would naturally engender intense emotional intents. However, it is not its starting point - although it may actually chronologically precede the actual intellectual assent of a worldview. The rise and fall of a new believer - usually begins with an intense emotional response to the call, but this emotion needs direction. The faith that comes through hearing - and accepting with intellectual assent - and the emotion of accepting that germ of faith. The emotion is not born for itself, but it guided from its birth by the assent - John 3:16. It is furthered only by the intellectual grasping and construction of the worldview. In so doing, we must be extremely careful not to discard faith in place of worldview; this is simply because, a worldview can be discarded, faith on the other hand, is something that cannot be rejected by intellectual assent or dissent: it just is, as real as the books on my desk, the wall between my room and the kitchen.
But the Christian worldview cannot be nor can it start from an intellectual assent. It must be born from faith, a gift a reality that is absurd to deny. Faith does not exist rationally, but in reality. Christianity is not simply creedal acceptance - it is emotional struggling, falling, failing, rising, and most importantly - living. Therefore, why do we call it a worldview? The world-view is something that is still outside myself; it is my "lens" but it is not myself, it is a lens honed and sanded to my needs, to my personal temperament, and so I find great comfort in its fit. However, if the beauty of any worldview is its eloquence, grandeur and the ornamentations of the complete system - cross-referenced and tightly-bound, thank you very much - then we must reject it; its beauty draws our eyes so much so that we miss that it is existing only in mid-air, without any support outside of the self-generating system. To combat this, we must rally again to the first existential call - reality is not rational.
Let me illustrate more fully why Christianity cannot be considered a worldview. Let's consider three "worldviews": Christian, Buddhist, and Atheist, on only one point of contention: Creation. The Christian believes in the creation of a world, the Buddhist believes in its perpetual existence, and the Atheist believes in its accidental, non-teleological existence. As proof they all cross-reference different things in order to show their plausibility (Note: I am not making any judgment on what they reference, only the fact that they are referencing to different things; also, I'm not arguing for the truth of any of these, which is their content, but merely their form), the Christian the Bible, the Buddhist their specific holy books, and the atheist the latest scientific information. Now, imagine all the times that they cross-reference, not just in creation, but in everything: they criss-cross innumerable times in order to form a tight, airtight ball; that is why worldviews - in their most fundamental states - cannot assimilate or adequately address new data. They all clumsily go about trying their hardest to form increasingly complicated and super-coherent (though coherency is relative depending on which system you're currently in) understandings of their own little ball of knowledge, instead of simply assenting to the self-evident truth: that the other ball has quite an array of attractive and colorful twine.
Now that there are three different systems of thought. Why do you choose one over the other? Why are they even on the same plane, and, who has the right to say which one is correct and one is false? The inherent claim of the Christian, though, or of Christianity itself, is that it is a paradox - therefore blocked by reason, and that there is a transcendence above this paradox; the worldview is the reason that leads to the curtain; the paradox is the curtain, and behind it, the Holy of Holies, which is transcendental Christian truth. It is not on the same plane, but above it, and my only warrant for saying this is the reality of faith that I find not simply in myself, but in others. It is not something "unreal" but something that is most real, and therefore something I can't deny.
This is why, I view with the greatest suspicion, the general Christian academic landscape and why I must still parry questions by well-wishing GC seminarians. It seems to me, that instead of willing to discuss and develop, they're in a rut that they can't get out of, basically, because they can't admit they're wrong; this is a symptom of confusing faith for worldview. Worldviews are subject to critique, but only as someone who is genuinely interested in critiquing it, and not open to those who have already made up their minds (since this puts you already inside a worldview and not outside it) The critic must step outside of this worldview, then, in order to be as objective, dispassionate, in short, academic, as possible. Then after analysis, how ironic, the synthesis of worldviews can begin. But this synthesis is merely an intellectual exercise, it is not self, it is not reality, and it is not faith.
In other news: I miss the simple boyishness and mythical-cultural conservatism of Calvin and Hobbes.
No comments:
Post a Comment