The problem with worldview thinking...

One of the buzzwords in Christian culture today is "world-view," in fact, I'm seeing that word in lots of places, and I can see why. It's a very nice simple way of describing a person's life philosophy. It's also free of the philosophic and religious jargon that our generation finds so unappealing due to it's sometimes-obscure jargon and the connotations related to authority that is so repulsive to our generation. The church has jumped on the world-view bandwagon too. Books like Nancy Pearcey's Total Truth, D.A. Carson's The Gagging of God, and earlier works like The Universe Next Door by James Sire, the books of Francis Schaeffer, Os Guiness, and Chuck Colson (all of which are excellent) have all discussed the importance of a Christian world-view whose message impacts all of life.

I think it's a good thing for Christians to be thinking about, it's good for us to see our beliefs as having a larger impact than exclusively personal or political issues. It's also helpful to have an understanding of other world-views and the ideas behind them when you're dialogging with non-Christians.

But I'm starting to think that world-view thinking has the potential to be very dangerous. As more and more churches are offering classes discussing world-views- Christianity, naturalism, existentialism, nihilism, deism, etc.- I fear we're doing a poor job of equipping Christians to enter the market place and express their ideas to individuals.

While it is good for Christians to understand what existentialism, nihilism, naturalism, post-modernism, modernism, and deconstructionism are, it is equally important to understand that you will not find many people who label themselves as such. And if you impose such a label on them based on one or two comments they make then you're likely to begin thinking, "OK, how'd my class teach me to talk to nihilists?" rather than, "What are the needs of this individual in this moment?" I grew up in a church that labeled everyone outside as "unbeliever/sinner" and drew up a memorized program to use in addressing them. I'm glad we're moving away from that unbiblical, unloving, and anti-the-way-of-Jesus idea. But is it really that much of an improvement if we simply shift to having several different labels to use for those outside the church and then memorize speeches for each of those labels? It's still mechanical and impersonal. Granted, it's better than the "they're a sinner, bash 'em with the bible," approach, but it still isn't the biblical approach that sees each individual as an image-bearer with their own specific questions that need to be addressed and prejudices to the gospel that need be eliminated.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that Christians are trying to see their faith as all-encompassing, and I'm grateful for the greater interest in the philosophies of others so that we may more effectively address them, but I fear that, with the church's tendency to label and over-simplify, that we're simply trading one error for a slightly less dehumanizing (though equally unbiblical) error.

Thoughts?