Can't Have One without the Other:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
The Necessity of Worldview Analysis in Apologetics
by Jason Graham
 
But, Is It True?
We have been called to make "disciples of all nations." But fulfilling this mandate has not been an easy task. Whether it is Paul sharing the truth with the Stoics and Epicureans in Athens, or Mother Teresa sharing God's love with the Dalets in Calcutta, or Campus Crusade staff sharing the message with America's postmodern youth, the task of disciple-making is made all the more arduous because of the varying false beliefs that our non-Christian neighbors have mistakenly accepted as truth.
While presenting the truth in love is necessary for winning converts, it is just as necessary to interact with another's core convictions. If unbelievers are to place their faith in the Savior, they must be convinced that Christianity is actually true. After all, if I were asking you to reorient your entire way of life-your most fundament beliefs-you would want to know if what I was selling is actually worth buying.
So the task of evangelism actually begs the question, is it possible to demonstrate that Christianity is true? Likewise, is it possible to demonstrate that non-Christian religions are false? Many Christians have blindly devoted their lives to the Christian faith without wrestling with its fundamental truth claims. Many grew up in a Christian sub-culture, were raised by Christian parents, and frequented church. Many Christians have acquired their Christianity the same way human beings catch colds, i.e. by being around other people.
This doesn't mean that such devotion isn't genuine or that such faith is misplaced. Rather, it means that a good number of Christians have simply accepted the tenants of the Christian faith without ever contemplating the most pivotal question-"Is it true?"[1] And more to the point, it also means that we often attempt to "make disciples" without being offering reasons to believe.
So how should we respond when a skeptic asks for evidence that God exists, or when a Muslim wonders why he should abandon Islam for Christianity, or when a New Ager wants to know why he or she should accept the Christian religion when all religions lead to the same god?
Moreover, what happens when a Christian's beliefs is challenged: when a biology teacher confronts our children with the theory of evolution, or when an sociology professor suggests that truth is determined by one's culture, or when a Muslim asks how God can logically be both three and one? What do we do in the face of personal tragedy, when a grieving family member is wondering how a good and all-powerful God would allow such horrific acts of evil and suffering?
 
Thank God for Apologetics
The good news is that there is a long and abundant history of answers for both the shaken believer and the probing skeptic. Apologetics is the art of defending and promoting the Christian faith-a tradition that goes back to the early Church, the Apostles, and even Christ himself.[2] J.P. Moreland, a well-respected Christian philosopher, outlines the importance of apologetics as follows:
 
First, Scripture commands us to defend the faith and gives us several examples of such activity [e.g. Jesus' response to Thomas in the Gospels, Jude 3, and 1 Peter 3:15–16]. . . .
Second, apologetics can help remove obstacles to faith and thus aid unbelievers in embracing the gospel. . . .
Third, apologetics can strengthen believers in at least two ways. For one thing, it gives them confidence that their faith is true and reasonable; therefore, apologetics encourages a life of faith seeking understanding. [Likewise], apologetics can actually encourage spiritual growth [i.e. help Christians identify and release us from the ways of the world]. . . .
Fourth, apologetics can contribute to health in the culture at large. . . When believers promote their faith because it is true and rational, they contribute to a general cultural perception which sees that moral and religious issues are not mere matters of private taste, but rather are areas where truth and rational argument are appropriate.[3]
 
Apologetics, when employed, can strengthen the faith of Christians as well as defend and promote Christianity at large. Philosopher Ronald Nash considers it useful to divide the practice of apologetics into two basic forms, negative and positive:
 
In negative apologetics, the major objective is producing answers to challenges to religious faith. The proper tack of negative apologetics is removing obstacles to belief. . . . In negative apologetics, the apologist is playing defense. In positive apologetics, the apologist begins to play offense. It is one thing to show (or attempt to show) that assorted arguments against religious faith are weak or unsound; it is a rather different task to offer people reasons why they should believe. The latter is the task of positive apologetics.[4]
 
Thus apologetics ends up being both offensive and defensive. On the one hand, apologetic interaction can help defend the truth of Christianity. On the other hand, apologetics can be employed to help demonstrate the superiority of Christianity to other competing points of view.
To successfully engage in the art of apologetics, Christians should have an understanding of worldview analysis. Worldview analysis deals with core beliefs, both of Christians and non-Christians. By analyzing another's core beliefs, and being sure of our own, we can discover inconsistencies between the ideas people hold and the world in which live.
 
The Worldview Grid
A worldview is simply the way one sees the world. It is the grid through which each of us filters and interprets all of reality. The term "worldview" is also used more broadly, like when we speak of differing ideologies (for example we might refer generally to the "Hindu worldview" or the "Postmodern worldview" or the "Christian worldview").[5]
The method of comparing worldviews is called worldview analysis.[6] When comparing worldviews we are most interested in fundamental beliefs, namely views about God, human nature, ethics, the nature of ultimate reality, and the like. Worldview analysis compares how different worldviews answer life's ultimate questions-questions which include, but are not limited to:
 
1)      If there is a God, what is he/she/it like?
2)      What is the nature of human beings?
3)      What is the basis for right and wrong?
4)      What is the nature of ultimate reality?
5)      What and how can human beings know anything?[7]
 
Consider as an example the worldview of Democritus-a sixth century B.C. philosopher who believed that our world was comprised solely of material atoms. Like many modern scientists, Democritus filtered everything through this grid. All of his questions about human beings, ethics, theology, etc., were answered by his core belief that eternal matter was all there is to reality. He believed that chance combinations of atoms could explain the existence of such things as horses, spears, and even pre-Socratic philosophers. And since the universe is essentially matter in motion, he believed it must also be devoid of any providential purpose or design, or for that matter, anything supernatural. Democritus thus had a naturalistic worldview.
Keeping with Democritus' worldview as an example, it is easy to see how our beliefs about reality influence our beliefs about God, and vice versa. The core tenants of a worldview interconnect much like the intersections of a spider's web. A naturalist's beliefs about reality (i.e., only matter exists) determines his beliefs about the divine (i.e., God and the supernatural cannot exist) and his beliefs about human beings (i.e., humans are merely soulless matter caught in the inevitable chain of cause and effect).
 
The Worldview Tree
It is also helpful to think of a worldview as the parts of a tree-with the roots being our beliefs and the fruit being our actions. In contrast to the naturalistic worldview above, consider the worldview of a Christian and the actions that such a worldview produces:
 
·         Roots (Beliefs): The Christian answers life's fundamental questions through reason and the teachings of the Bible. Therefore, she concludes there is more to reality than just material atoms, but there also must exist a supernatural God who designed and created this universe in which we reside. She concludes that humans are a unique creation by God, existing for a purpose beyond this world.
 
·         Fruit (Actions): Because of these basic beliefs (i.e., her worldview), you find her at times on her knees praying to God, asking Him to guide her choices and intervene in her life. She reads her Bible seeking to know God and his will for her life, her Christian community, and all of creation. She strives to obey and please her Creator in her thoughts and actions. She endeavors to embody love-forgiving her brothers, sisters, and even her enemies, correcting those in her community, caring for the poor and widowed, and sharing her hope of eternal life with anyone who will listen.
 
The point here is that our actions don't exist in a vacuum; they don't just spontaneously happen. Because of his view of history and economics, a Marxist believes that private property is evil and should be abolished. The reason that some Hindus are left to die in the streets of Calcutta while cows are revered is because of their view of karma and reincarnation. The Islamic practice of jihad, in its various expressions, is based on the Islamic view of God and salvation. Ultimately, if these practices (i.e., the fruit) are to change, the beliefs (i.e., the roots) that produced them must be confronted and changed.
 
Worldviews and Apologetics
There are three ways in which worldview analysis is paramount for apologetics. First, a Christian should have a coherent and consistent biblically-influenced worldview, otherwise he is in danger of misrepresenting Christianity, presenting an alternative version that either appears foolish to a thinking audience, or that is inconsistent with biblical teaching.
Second, the Christian should be able to defend or refute arguments against the Christian worldview. Many critics have what appear to be good reasons for doubting Christianity. We should be willing and able to consider and respond rationally to such objections.
Finally, in order to point out the flaws of non-Christian positions, we need to be familiar with alternate positions and their inherent inconsistencies.[8] This was eloquently expressed by Francis Schaeffer:
 
[E]very person we speak to, whether shop girl or university student, has a set of presuppositions, whether he or she has analyzed them or not. . . . [W]hen you face twentieth-century man, whether he is brilliant or an ordinary man of the street, a man of the university or the docks, you are facing a man in tension; and it is this tension which works on your behalf as you speak to him. . . . Every person has the pull of two consistencies, the pull towards the real world [of Christian theism] and the pull towards the logic of his system. He may let the pendulum swing back and forth between them, but he cannot live in both places at once.[9]
 
In the end, one's worldview is capable of either revealing the world as it truly is or distorting our perspective of reality and ultimately misleading us as we walk through life. If one's worldview is false, it will have inconsistencies. Most human beings desire to live in a way that corresponds to what is true about the world. Or, put differently, most human beings feel conflicted, even uncomfortable, when they hold assumptions about their world that do not line up with what they have experienced about reality.[10] The logical conclusion of naturalism is that life has no ultimate purpose; there is no foundation for ethical mandates; and that human beings have no freedom to make meaningful choices. But few naturalists are willing (or even able) to live this way.
A logical inconsistency brilliantly came to light in a 1994 debate over evolution when Dr. William Provine openly  admitted[CE1]  to Dr. Phillip Johnson that, given naturalism, humans were merely the purposeless products of a natural process and thus possessed no freewill. Yet, by the very fact that he was debating the issue of evolution, Dr. Provine demonstrated to the Stanford audience that he did believe human beings were capable of freely changing their minds about such subjects. Otherwise, why have a debate? And although this discrepancy did not cause Dr. Provine to change his view during that exchange of ideas, the inherent inconsistency suggested to the audience that they should reject his naturalism.[11]
As Dr. Kenneth Samples notes, "worldview thinking allows the apologist to think comprehensively about various belief systems and evaluate their coherence, correspondence to established truths, explanatory power, simplicity, existential livability, pragmatic consequences, and necessary presuppositions."[12] By getting to know what others believe, we can analyze the coherence of their worldview. If their worldview is inconsistent, we can ask them to consider the implications of their beliefs. Then, if we provide reasons for the truth of Christianity, we will give them a solid foundation for changing from their unwarranted worldview and building their life upon God's truth.

[1] This is the them of Winfried Corduan, No Doubt About It: The Case for Christianity (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1997), see especially pages 13–17.

[2] See for example Origen's response to a second century skeptic in Contra Celsus. See for example how the Apostle John deals with the proto-Gnostics in 1 John 4 and how the Apostle Paul defends Christian doctrine against the legalism of the Judaizers in Galatians 1­–2. See for example how Jesus skillfully deals with the Pharisees, Herodians, and the Sadducees in Matthew 22. On this last example see J.P. Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1997), 51–52.

[3] ---, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1987), 11–12.

[4] Ronald H. Nash, Faith and Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1988), 14–15.

[5] While I generally do not like to stereotype, I do recognize the value of speaking of worldviews in general. For example, if I were to say that Gregory Boyd is an Open Theist or that John Piper is a hyper-Calvinist, it certainly does simplify conversation. Of course, with that being said we must remember that individuals rarely fit neatly within the classification we often assign to them. People are often far more complicated than that.

[6] For an excellent introduction to worldviews see W. Gary Phillips, William E. Brown, and John Stonestreet, Making Sense of Your World: From a Biblical Viewpoint, 2nd ed. (Salem, WI: Sheffield Publishing Company, 1991/2008). And James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic World View Catalog, 4th ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1976/2004).

[7] These five subjects are very similar to those used by Dr. Nash in Ronald H. Nash, Life's Ultimate Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999), 14–17.

[8] For an excellent systematic comparison of prominent Western worldviews see David Noebel, Understanding the Times: The Collision of Today's Competing Worldviews, Rev. 2nd ed. (Manitou Springs, CO: Summit Press, 1991/2006).

[9] Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998)., 148,150,152.

[10] I say "most human beings" because today's postmodernists consider inconsistency to be "consistent" with their anti-worldview "worldview." For an example of this see Richard Rorty's accounts for justice and beauty from the perspective of his worldview in his revised and reprinted essay "Trotsky and the Wild Orchids" in Richard Rorty, Philosophy and Social Hope (New York, NY: Penguin Books, 1999).

[11] I was unable to find a transcript for this debate, but notes are available at http://www.arn.org/docs/guides/stan_gd1.htm#top.

[12] Kenneth Samples, Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004), 258.

 [CE1]I've seen the debate several times and recall that Provine freely acknowledged the implications of naturalism without prompting by Johnson.