New Eyes, Not New Glasses

[EricRauch]

One of the primary concerns of this website is to educate and enable Christians to realize the importance of worldviews. It is our contention that most Christians do not understand why worldview thinking is so critical. It is not that convincing people of the importance of a worldview is a difficult thing, I can communicate this to my children without too much difficulty. The motivation behind any particular action is far more significant than the action itself. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason or doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still wrong. Most people recognize and will readily admit that how we view the world is a key ingredient to what we will do in that world. But the task becomes far more difficult when run in reverse—getting people to admit that their actions are wrong because they stem from wrong beliefs.

While the concept of worldview is certainly familiar to most readers, it never hurts to remind ourselves of what we're up against when we discuss the topic. W. Andrew Hoffecker ably summarizes it this way:

Widespread use of worldview in other academic fields [outside of Philosophy departments] testifies to its significance in the abstract world of ideas, and to its implications for every form of human activity. One's worldview, or world-and-life view, consists of one's most basic beliefs and framework of understanding. Basic beliefs can be expressed by several terms—ideas, assumptions, convictions, presuppositions, and premises. Directly or indirectly, basic beliefs influence every dimension of human life: they guide thought, stimulate imagination, influence intuition, direct moral choices, and determine the value and priority given to each of these faculties. Collectively, basic beliefs function as the grid or matrix by which we comprehend reality and attempt to live consistently within that framework.[1]

A worldview has often been compared to a pair of eyeglasses. Using this analogy, a worldview—like a set of corrective lenses—affects how we see everything. In other words, a proper worldview should correct how we normally "see" the world, putting everything back into proper perspective and clarity. But this analogy is deficient because it seems to indicate that a "worldview" is only necessary when our normal way of "seeing" becomes fuzzy. We don't just need corrective lenses, we need new eyes. Our normal way of seeing is one that seems right, but ends in death (Proverbs 14:12, 16:25). Most worldview teaching and training focuses so heavily on correcting bad eyesight, that it never thinks to question why the eyesight was so bad in the first place. It's like building an elaborate system of buckets and hoses, rather than simply fixing the hole in the roof.

J. Mark Bertrand illustrates the problem with the worldview-as-glasses analogy (although he's not trying to do this) with a story from his own life:

Growing up, I was the kid who preferred reading to recess and chose the library over the playground whenever possible. My parents always warned me about reading in poor light, but let's face it: low lighting sets the mood. I'm not sure when my vision began to deteriorate, but at some point, perhaps as early as junior high, I became nearsighted.

This isn't a problem when you read—to this day, I can read without the aid of glasses—but it can definitely cause trouble when you're trying to catch a football. Fortunately, bookworms don't do much of that, so it wasn't until I learned to drive that my vision became a problem.

One afternoon I was riding home from high school with my cousin Jeff. He had recently gotten glasses and as he drove, he read off the signs that we passed. I was amazed at how far he could see. Up until that moment, I had never suspected that my own vision was faulty, and to be honest, I didn't even wonder then. Instead, I remember thinking that Jeff's glasses must have given him better than 20/20 vision, since he could see even farther than I could. I just assumed that whatever I could see was the objective standard...

It is amazing to think that a young man with what I later discovered was 20/80 vision was capable of performing normally in every area of life (aside from catching footballs), never suspecting the deficiency of vision. [2]

Bertrand goes on to describe his own obliviousness to his poor eyesight until he was driving one night on unfamiliar roads. His vision failed him when he needed it most. Ready to swear off driving altogether, his father recommended an eye-exam instead. The resulting eyeglass prescription was a revelation of just how bad his vision really was. But he never would have known this unless he had compared his own eyes against a "standard" of good vision. It took many years for Bertrand to realize that there was anything amiss with his eyes. He figured that this was the way everyone saw the world.

But as helpful and necessary as his eyeglasses are for driving, Bertrand tells us that he really doesn't need his glasses to read. This is where I think the analogy for worldview breaks down. We typically think of glasses as something we need to help us do a particular task. Bertrand needs his glasses to drive and catch footballs, but not to read. But this is exactly the opposite of a worldview. A worldview is something that we are never without. There is no activity or moment in the day when our worldview doesn't filter "reality." The idea of glasses puts us back in control, deciding when and where to put on our "worldview corrective lenses." This completely misses the point that there are a multitude of times each day when we think we are seeing clearly, but in reality, we aren't. Like Bertrand, we assume that how we see the world is the objective standard, that we only need to get out our "worldview specs" when things begin to get fuzzy. The truth of the matter is that it was fuzzy the entire time before we began to realize it. We don't need glasses; we need new eyes. Sadly, most worldview thinking doesn't seem to get this most basic point.

But there is a glimmer of hope. In a review of James Smith's new book, Desiring the Kingdom, Eric Miller writes this:

For Smith, worldview-centered education reflects a continued understanding of human beings as primarily rational creatures, moved and animated mainly by ideas. From this assumption has come a particular form of education—very much in line with the secular academy—that elevates the classroom and privileges fact, argument, and belief. To those who espouse this view, Smith poses one fundamental question in the form of a thought experiment: "What if education wasn't first and foremost about what we know, but about what we love?" [3]

It is a shame that this question has been so long in coming. If Miller is correctly summarizing Smith, we can congratulate Smith for finally coming to understand what homeschooling families have been saying for years. A true education is not just about information, but a relationship. Education is moral first, ethical second. Trust must be established before training can begin. Worldview education is not primarily about being a corrective lens, it is about transplant surgery. The cold, hard facts of most worldview education leaves out the key component of the entire process: the heart. It's not as though we fail to see things God's way due to a lack of facts, we fail to see God's way due to misplaced affections. We don't love God with all of our heart, soul, and strength, so we can't possibly love Him with all of our mind. Spending a bunch of time training our minds in a biblical worldview is pointless if our hearts are far from Him.

Endnotes:

[1] W. Andrew Hoffecker, "Preface," Revolutions in Worldview: Understanding the Flow of Western Thought (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2007), xi.
[2] J. Mark Bertrand, Rethinking Worldview (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007, 27.
[3] Eric Miller, "Putting Worldview in its Place," Christianity Today, August 2009, 55.

[john_rowland]

But there is a glimmer of hope. In a review of James Smith's new book, Desiring the Kingdom, Eric Miller writes this:

For Smith, worldview-centered education reflects a continued understanding of human beings as primarily rational creatures, moved and animated mainly by ideas. From this assumption has come a particular form of education—very much in line with the secular academy—that elevates the classroom and privileges fact, argument, and belief. To those who espouse this view, Smith poses one fundamental question in the form of a thought experiment: "What if education wasn't first and foremost about what we know, but about what we love?" [3]

It is a shame that this question has been so long in coming. If Miller is correctly summarizing Smith, we can congratulate Smith for finally coming to understand what homeschooling families have been saying for years. A true education is not just about information, but a relationship. Education is moral first, ethical second. Trust must be established before training can begin.

Discipleship (or alternatively apprenticeship) is the model presented in the scripture. It is by nature relational. However, we have tended to buy into the "present the facts" approach in most spheres of life -- to our loss as people of God.

Men now become pastors by "going to school" rather than successful discipling in the family and surrounding community, etc. If they are "really successful" they will "super-size" their churches and be written about in the trade press, rather than knowing and looking well to the needs of their flock -- keeping the mindset of a father with his children -- not just as a message-deliverer.

Business has become a world of "super-size it" MBA-driven, by-the-numbers management rather than smaller, slower-growing apprenticeship, knowing and serving your employees, knowing and serving your customers.

[Kirk Fraser]

Worldview is a common topic in Philosophy and when studying Artificial Intelligence in Computer Science. The distinctions between glasses and eyes parallels the broader distinction between what you see because of what you believe and what you are in the sense of a spiritual computer program in a biological robot - with free will.

I've noticed my own eyes will blank out certian things in my field of vision if I chose to believe it isn't there. When I open my mind to what is there, the object reappears. This may explain why there are false eye-witnesses in courts - people with less experience may actually believe something was or wasn't there when it's really a fabrication of their mind.

Likewise, human worldview has serious impact on other humans. When one quarter as I was paying tuition, I noticed the clerk hovering over me like she expected me to make a mistake and that intent was conveyed spiritually. That expectation bore fruit and the clerk got to assist. In another experience, I was driving in a city and when a county police vehicle was following me, I felt his desire for me to screw up so he could ticket me. So I went very carefully ignoring his desire until he turned away. The reality of spiritual communication is often experienced between Christian couples and often ignored or misexplained secularly. One group the James Randi Foundation has a worldview so strongly against all miracles they offer $1 million to anyone who can prove it. I think their dark expectation is so strong as to reduce legitimate results.

It is realy a disservice to one's own humanity as well as the world and universe to have a non-Christian non-Spiritual worldview. If you don't believe your expectations affect others, you'll go on ignoring things like one friend who didn't realize his desire for me to read the entire Bible put me under a spirit of legalism that appeared whenever I attempted to comply. Among the worst offenders I know is a young man on SSI who has had brain surgery and is supposed to be taking meds - he has given me the worst headaches of my life and yet when I talked to him about it, it was temporarily was replaced by joy.

The worldview of traditional lukewarm Christianity which always results in people divorcing as frequently and eventually dying just like unbelievers hints that there is something wrong. Jesus appears to have been much more absolute for the perfect Holy Spirit and perfect logic than most today. Jesus taught looking at a woman to lust after her made you commit adultery with her in your heart. In contrast Rush Limbaugh taught oggling a woman's breasts can give you a heart boost to make you live longer. Quite a difference in worldview. The worldview of interest to me is whatever it takes to perform Jesus' miracles and greater like He promised. It has taken me until this year to experience one of His healing miracles and it was conveyed to a neighbor who experienced a similar answer to prayer.

[gaveitup]

We are what we think
All that we are arises from our thoughts
With our thoughts we create the world.

OR

For as he thinks within himself
So he is. Prov. 23:7

[Osito]

I applaud Mr. Rauch for trying to get such a large concept into a short, readable blog. The downside, of course, is that not enough time can be given to all aspects for consideration, e. g. when, how and the aftereffects of decisions.

As for when, one cannot assume that the Christian worldview, as espoused in the forum, is a workable starting point. The Bible and related teachings contain great wisdom, but one can't simply approach them without the correct disposition. That bit of work is not their purpose. The correct disposition is the result of philosophy - not a "school of philosophy," but just the rudimentary aspects. Philosophy can make one congruent with a rational world, or make one see the world as arbitrary. So, proper disposition is the first step toward "new eyes."

My second point is that "catching a football" was not explored enough. It is simply that certain people do not "catch footballs" that ruins their disposition. For example, one could never really reason with Richard Dawkins, because he is incapable of rational thought. He is absolutely materialistic, and everything outside of materialism is "catching the football." You could try to talk with him about things using common language and common experiences, but he will never understand you because he can't "catch a football," therefore making the meaning that reaches him a materialistic argument.

I once had several discussions on another forum with a highschool English teacher who shared Dawkins' disease. We could barely communicate. His quotations of authority often argued the exact opposite of what he was arguing. He was an adherent to "modern" schools of philosophy that included Secularism, Individualism and Relativism, and taught his students in that manner. Think of those poor students trying to understand the written word when he is telling them that nothing is objectively true - a word may not mean what you think it should. He had the poorest reading comprehension skills of anyone I knew, and he was actively trying to pass that trait along to his students.

The point is that emphasis must be given to basic philosophical skills (how we learn, how to recognize objective truth...) before the "eyes" are disposed properly.

[scicdad]

The concept of a worldview is, I think, both a fundamental and a critical aspect of communication. I've often thought that it should be required of speakers or writers to not only identify their educational credentials and/or professional affiliations but that they should also identify their particular worldview so that the audience has an opportunity to understand the context of any declarations or conclusions. Many people speak or write with a tone and a confidence that presupposes that their viewpoint is solidly based. Whether they can articulate their worldview or not, they assume that their utilization of the facts is logical and/or scientific and therefore unquestionable.

I learned in grade school science class that a good experimenter poses a hypothesis before writing a test plan and conducting a test. Where does that initial hypothesis come from? Can it, on its own, lead an experiment and a scientist astray? Francis Schaeffer pointed out in, "How Should We Then Live" that Sir Isaac Newton's mathematical treatment of motion was a direct result of his faith in God and his belief that God was orderly and that He created an orderly world -- a world that would lend itself to mathematical description. I think many would agree that Newton's worldview did not hamper his science. In many respects, it could be argued that it enhanced it. If a scientist's worldview is somehow deficient, it is, perhaps, easy to imagine how he or she might think that all the facts required to recommend a conclusion have been collected -- e.g. a sufficient amount to prove their point. Consider the thesis of evolution scientists as an example of this myopic reasoning.

A worldview essentially defines a person. Eyes may be a part of who that person is but the eyes do not, on their own, dictate what that person will do with what he or she sees. New eyes may help a person see things differently but new eyes with an old spirit is not a sufficient prescription for beginning to act differently with new information. It is the heart that must be changed!

I think that the concept of a worldview needs to be taught at an early age so that it becomes clear from an early age how it is to be used when formulating any hypothesis or any argument. I know too many Christians who have a narrow worldview -- one allowing them to draw lines where the Bible is applicable and where it is not. The problem, of course, is that they have adopted a worldview instead of constructing one from scratch. We, all of us, are prone to hold onto wrong beliefs without thinking about them much. We ignore or deflect challenges to them very easily and oftentimes consider the challenger to be idiotic. A mindless worldview is a potentially dangerous worldview! I applaud Mr. Rauch's treatment of worldviews and hope to see more articles on this subject in this Christian Worldview Forum.

[keepingtabs]

Christian worldviews can be as varied, erroneous and debatable as secular worldviews, i.e. the reformed view of limited atonement, etc.

So, just because one has a 'Christian' worldview does not automatically guarantee that it is the 'correct' worldview.

[Determined]

The sad thing is I also study the Bible chapter by chapter and verse by verse with Shepherds Chapel and their are people who speak very poorly of this Pastor and his teachings.I've been with them for over six years and have learned more about GOD'S love and teachings of his over all purpose for his children and it seems to go against the grain of traditional teachings of some churches and christians and that saddens me that people of faith would do something like that.I don't do that to others who's beliefs are different then mine of what the scripture say. I may have a different thought on what I think it means for me but I respect theirs and as children of GOD we should do the same for others.We all have one thing to do together that is to plant seeds to others that don't believe and try to live as best we can like a child of GOD we are not perfect we too still sin and know thru prayer we are forgiven.Now that doesn't mean it is a license to sin by no means it is to admit our wrongs and try to not do it again and learn from it.Christianity is not a religion it is a reality.A life style and I try to be an example to others and do what is right in GOD'S eyes not man (no gender)I still fall short on occasion that is our weakness in the flesh but GOD loves all of his children.He may not like what we do but as a parent he loves us and will if needed correct that is called TOUGH LOVE but it is TRUE LOVE.