Against “Against Worldview”?

Full disclaimer: I teach at a conservative Christian college, where I co-teach three courses in our general education curriculum titled Christianity, Culture, and Worldview (an introduction, an intermediate, and a capstone class). Moreover, I also recently helped edit a volume that focused heavily on educating readers on Christian Worldview, titled, Christians in Culture. Even so, when I came across Simon Kennedy’s recent book, Against Worldview, my interest was piqued. I am aware of the on-going discussions in relation to worldview and worldview education.

For those unaware, people have critiqued both the history and the usefulness of the term “worldview,” especially as it relates to use within Christian contexts. Moreover, there have been plenty of critiques of “worldview academies” and “worldview seminars” put on by churches and institutions. That said, the last 50 years have seen a huge surge in the use of Christian worldview, especially in educational and parachurch contexts.

Kennedy begins his book by critiquing the current use of worldview, particularly in its use within educational contexts. His reasons are varied, though his main concern seems to be a pragmatic one: Simply put, “The current Christian worldview concept doesn’t work” (p.123). Kennedy’s book is provocative, and I mean that in the truest sense of the word. The book caused me to take an honest look at my own approach to worldview education, and he certainly seeks to challenge the reader to reimagine what worldview education could look like if one embraces a more wisdom-laden approach.

Although I found much in the book that I agreed and resonated with, I found the argumentation of the book lacking in some significant ways. First, the book structure’s main argument lacks a clear coherency. By way of survey, the first chapter asks the simple question “can worldview work?” The second chapter, likewise seeks to offer a—rather brief—history of Christian worldview. Whatever one may think of his assertions in chapter one, his argumentation in chapter two seems to be lacking.

Though the book is admittedly brief, the second chapter jumps from German idealism, to James Orr, to Abraham Kuyper, to Van Til, to Francis Schaeffer, and finally to Nancy Pearcey and Chuck Colson in 13 pages. Causal relationships are not properly established between these individuals, and moreover, other than a “combat concept” it is unclear as to what all of these individuals have in common.

Chapter three shifts focus to epistemology. While the focus on a realist perspective is welcomed, I think readers would have difficulty in understanding how this chapter is connected not only to the chapters before but also the ones that follow. Kennedy seems to argue that a realist perspective offers the best and most humble way to approach an understanding of Christian worldview.

Chapter four is the most connected to the subtitle of the book. This chapter offers wisdom as the telos of Christian education. This chapter does distinguish between practical and spiritual wisdom, which made me wonder whether or not this sets up a sacred-secular divide in Kennedy’s understanding.

Chapter five helpfully seeks to put Kennedy’s view into practice. Ironically, Kennedy critiques current worldview discussion as being vague, and yet, his application in this chapter seems to suffer the same fate. Moreover, he tends to draw back on some of his stronger claims he made earlier in the book. The book concludes with a helpful final chapter that summarizes seven main theses that were made throughout the book.

The book could be strengthened in a couple ways. First, the book would have been strengthened by a much clearer foil. While Kennedy does make references to various “worldview” thinkers (e.g. Abraham Kuyper, Francis Schaeffer, James Sire), the book ends up being unclear as to who is actually in view of his critique. Is the critique more towards an organization that says a Christian can only hold a worldview if they believe in a young-earth creationism? Is it a critique of “worldview academies” that seek to teach students worldview analysis in an often abbreviated form? Kennedy is unclear.

Second, the book would have been strengthened by a wider reading of worldview sources, and a deeper reading on the sources mentioned. Two examples may suffice here. First, in his chapter on the history of Christian Worldview, Kennedy seems to critique Francis Schaeffer for a more “combative” approach to worldview thinking. The observation is largely fair, given that Schaeffer thought the Christian worldview was antithetical to all other worldviews. Even so, Kennedy in the following chapter seeks to promote a realist epistemology that is virtually identical to Schaeffer’s, specifically as it seeks to reconcile the subject-object problem. Schaeffer, like Kennedy, argues against both rationalism and empiricism (and their nuanced forms), and articulates a (critical) realist approach in his own thinking. This point implicates the previous point that it is unclear as to who is doing worldview education wrong. I was surprised not to find any mentions of Ronald Nash in Kennedy’s book who, I believe, offers a compelling vision for Christian Worldview conception.

The audience of the book is a bit unclear at times, with the book moving back and forth between broad surveys of topics, and specific engagement with ideas. The main focus of the book is on worldview education. Therefore, one properly assumes that the book is written to educators. However, the book seems to be written to a broader  audience. Kennedy, at times, opts for very broad terms, rather than more nuanced or clarified terms. For example, when discussing epistemology in chapter 3, Kennedy gives very brief definitions and surveys of rationalism, empiricism, and realism. Yet, these terms tend to be used too broadly for his purposes. When he advocates for realism, the reader may ask what kind of realism Kennedy is supporting. He seems to argue for a form of critical realism, but that is not clearly articulated. Conversely, if the book is for a more general audience, he seems to engage rather specifically with the Dutch Reformed tradition, more specifically with Herman Bavinck, in a way that may have needed more explanation.

Am I against Kennedy’s, Against Worldview? No, not really. Not anymore than he is against actual Christian worldview education. In many ways, I tend to agree with a lot of his assertions. I believe that various disciplines should be understood in relation to one another. I agree that a more inductive approach to education is more helpful. I certainly agree that approaching worldview through the lens of wisdom would be incredibly helpful. In the end, Kennedy and I probably agree  more than we disagree. That said, I’m not ready to throw out “worldview classes.” In that sense, you might say that I am “For Worldview.”

Photo retrieved from Unsplash