Talk:Christian worldview

Style edits

I agree with everyone here. The fact that these comments are so old, and my own recent experiences with trying to be a good "doo-bee" on Wikipedia and getting squashed and peedon by super touchy super-users makes me a bit gunshy. I'd love a little affirmation before I take it on. Can I get an amen or two? Is the original author still watching? Does he or she care if we work on this page a bit? (Does anyone know how you can find out who the original author is?) I honestly mean well. I want a page that's informative and fair and easy to read...(Konastephen (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

I was a good doo-bee and edited the article for style, but got caught up in the POV and forced citations and hacked pretty hard to try to get something sorta kinda like an encyclopedic article out of this. Couldn't take the POV out of it, though, so I took off the copyedit tag and left the POV tag. Now the healing can begin. basilwhite May 3, 2006

This seems to be one man's treatise (albeit, perhaps, a scholarly one) against those who use the term "Christian Worldview" to fight for conservative Christian values and truth claims. Also, this article is full of esoteric and awkward language. I've labeled it as needing work and having neutrality issues, but I don't think I'm qualified to fix it. See also Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Religion. --Locarno 20:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so the page as it stands, in my opinion does not serve its purpose- it should at least briefly give someone unfamiliar with Christianity an understanding of Christian belief, which it doesn't. However, it's strange that there's no uniform structure for Wiki articles pertaining to a particular religion, so I guess there's nothing really to compare it to in order to determine what the article's content should be. Nonetheless, I think thie article should be scrapped and rewritten over completely. What should we do?--Conwiktion 08:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree--someone should do that.  :) --Locarno 21:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Move

Someone editted Template:Christianity for sentence structure and changed it to [[Christian worldview]] thus breaking this link... so, I had to move it there since it is the proper capitalization anyways gren 22:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Structure suggestion

Perhaps a good structure for this article would be something along these lines:

I. Definition of the term "Worldview" (perhaps a list of synonyms would be helpful here as well, e.g., "form of life", "language game", "conceptual scheme").

II. Definition of "Christian" (at least a core definition, perhaps based on the ecumenical Creeds).

III. Application: the "Christian Worldview" is the entire set of beliefs about the world, man and God (and their various relations), that is informed by the core Christian beliefs. In other words, it is more like the standard Christians shoot for in the formulation of their worldview, than a particular formulation held by an individual or group. Kind of like how "Christian Behaviour" doesn't refer to all the various behaviours exibited by all the people who call themselves Christian, it refers to the standard of behaviour that is based on Christian beliefs.

Something like that?

A Sharp Division?

Has anyone considered rewriting the article to reflect the different worldviews depending on different Christian denominations? Off the top of my head, I can think of:

• The Protestant worldview. Described by Max Weber in his essay.
• The Puritanical worldview. Pilgrims; Winthrop; early American New English life.
• Millenialism. Held by early church, and by current sects fearing the apocalypse.
• Ecumentalism - modern Protestant.
• Revivalist movement (American)
• Fundamentalism, American (modern).
• Roman Catholicism - Liberation Theology.
• Secular Catholicism (much of modern Europe).

In short - I have never heard of a "Christian worldview." I have heard of the "Protestant ethic" and the above listed items.

I agree that it should be divided along some lines. Without having thought much about it, I'm not sure about those particular divisions. For example, many fundamentalists also emphasize millenialism. Revivals were only a part of the protestant Christian movement and, I believe, held to the same basic tenets. Maybe we can make it into a tree?

• Protestantism

1. Puritanism
2. Fundamentalism - Would this be legalism, as thought of today?
3. Evangelicalism - What used to be called Fundamentalism.

• Catholicism

1. Roman Catholicism
2. Secular Catholicism

• Eastern Orthodoxy

ElAmericano 22:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Modern Evangelical Worldview is fairly well presented by Rex Rogers here: http://www.cornerstone.edu/about/core_beliefs/worldview. It basically follows Michael Whittmer's outline from Heaven Is A Place On Earth, framing our story and our journey around the biblical pattern of Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Consummation. Hope that helps with the direction of the page's overhaul... at least in giving a source for a Theologically Conservative Evangelical angle. Baruch l'cha (blessings to you)--SHLAMA 08:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete this article.

This article is utterly useless, has been hijacked by someone to express his personal worldview (inspite of the edits, it still does this), and, as far as I can see has no analogous article in any of the either series of of articles for a particular religion. Can someone justify this article's existance? I don't know how to propose that an article be deleted, but if someone agrees with me who does know how to do this, please start the process.

I would say that it's purpose is to show that a certain group, commonly associated with a single aspect of life - theology - has a comprehensive view on life, in such areas as

• Theology
• Cosmology
• Biology
• History
• Sociology
• Psychology
• Philosophy
• Ethics
• Law
• Economics

I believe that articles on the worldviews of other major groups should also be a part of Wikipedia if they aren't. For example, Marxists/Leninists, secular humanists, and cosmic humanists/new-agers are not one dimensional believes either. Regarding this article, I agree that it should be divided up, possibly with each major section pointing to a whole article on that division's worldview. ElAmericano 02:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Caleb09

I agree i'm a Christian and this is just all one persons views

A rewrite

I'll be glad to rewrite the article as a synthesis of what's there (I haven't yet read the entire text, so I'm not sure as to POV and that mess), a new division scheme, and an inclusion of specific worldview topics, such as history, law, etc. (I named the ten major ones above.) Advice is always welcome. I'll rewrite it when I have the time. ElAmericano 22:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Regarding the term "christian worldview," this is a popular term among evangelically conservative Christians, especially in the American academic community. The term refers to their belief that higher education (especially the secularization of education) fails to provide a comprehensive understanding of life. The term "worldview" is not unique to Christians, however, finding common usage in philosophy. American evangelical Christians believe that modern epistemology and ontology that is void of God (more specifically the Christian Trinity) does little to explain the meaning and purpose of life. A Christian Worldview attempts to integrate Christian beliefs into philosophy. I am certainly no expert on this movement, but have a first hand experience of it, and have read about it extensively. Steven McCrary 20:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Semantics of "worldview" need clarification

This article contains a few useful elements but on the whole is probably not worth salvaging. It purports to discuss "Christian Worldview" in a scholarly fashion, even correctly refering to Dooyeweerd for example, but fails to meet any standard of scholarly objectivity or fairness in the manner in which the topic is addressed throughout. The hostility of the author towards Christianity in general is evident in his opening charicaturization of the Judeo-Christian understanding of reality to consist of more than the material as a "three-storey" view of the world. This sort of disrespectful cartoonishness would I'm sure be just as offensive if applied to the tenets of the author's own faith as it was doubtless intended to be towards Christians.

Basically, the issue here is that this is meant to be an article on Christian *worldview* not denominationalism or sectarianism.

A more serious and useful effort ought to trace the history and usage of the term "worldview" in Christian discourse; perhaps starting with the German and Dutch thinkers who coined the term ("Weltanschauung") and even, for the sake of context, referring to its use by thinkers in the stream of dialectical materialism where it was quite popular in the mid and late 20th century. Unfortunately, the word has lost much of its original content in common contemporary usage, succumbing to the relativizing pressure of more subjectivist, anthropocentric streams of thought. The word really refers to a set of fundamental philosophical assumptions, the "a priori" basis of thought, which underlies any person's belief system and hence lifestyle.

Using the word "worldview" correctly in this manner, as a term of art rather than a synonym for "perspective" or "point of view", it is possible to speak of a single Biblical Christian or Judeo-Christian worldview, just as it is possible to speak of a socialist (i.e. dialectical materialistic) worldview or humanist or hedonist or eastern mystic or pagan worldview. Variations in doctrine and practice within the numerous facets of Christendom are on a completely different level from historical, orthodox Christianity's basic answers to questions of ontology, epistemology, teleology and axiology. A discussion of "Christian Worldview" ought to focus on this level and perhaps explore some of the major historical implications in societies where Christianity has been the dominant social force.

Several excellent works already exist. I also will try to work on distilling some of them into something suitable for this venue. Konastephen 22:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments (2005) moved from Pages needing attention/Religion

The paragraphs below (Apr-May 2005) were moved here from PNA/Religion.

• Christian Worldview - This article is full of esoteric and awkward language, and isn't NPOV. --Locarno 20:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reply: I wrote the present entry for Christian Worldview (which should be entitled "Christian worldviews" since there are many; out with the misnomer, please). I look forward to it being further exanded and improved, but by people who know what a worldview is. I am in agreement with the material the evangelist PSzalapski presented; however, he plagiarized his schematic - Creation, Fall, Redemption - which is the work of the philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd and which the latter published in Dutch in 1935-1936, and then in English in 1953-57 (both of these being philosophical trilogies). Dooyeweerd and perhaps 1,000 Christian philosophers on all continents but Antarctica warmly acquainted with HD's work use the schematic mentioned, not for "worldview," but to indicate the content of the Christian religious ground motive C(RGM) in relation to three other main RGM's that have contested the shaping of the history of Western culture and civilization from within - the Form/Matter RGM of the Greeks, the Synthestist RGM of the Christianized Roman Empire after Constantine the Great, the Nature/Grace RGM of the Western Middle Ages, and the Nature/Freedom RGM of the Englightenment. Mr PSzalapski plagiarizes (zero attribution to HD and his whole school of philosophy), PS alters HD's schematic by inserting his own additional category into the rubric (which is fine, as long as he identifies the originator and what he's altering and why), PS makes a category mistake by not even examining the outstanding works in worldview studies (Naugle, Smart, Habermas, etc) so that in his ignorance he fails to recognize the difference between a worldivew (he dismisses all the scholarship and employs "worldview" as a buzzword for his project of evangelization) and religious ground motive (it's a technical term, but it is not esoteric). What I wrote indeed needs to be expanded and perhaps conrrected, because in my final section I concentrate on the revival and dissemination of the term in the last decades where it has come to especial prominence among evangelical Christians in North America. This American religious community has consequently experienced a rash of "worldview books" which vary considerably in their understandings. There is no one Christian worldview as my detractor ignorantly insists. Both Mr PSzalapinski and I have connection to the same large religious community. I just want him to be honest to the data and the meaning of the word, both generally and in the Christian context. Since other Christain religious communities do not use the term "worldview" nearly so widely, and because I don't pretend to know well what has been occurring in their contexts, I used a quote referring to Naugle's history of the concept to live-link to Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity Wiki sites. I'm hoping people from these two Christian communities who have studied and reflected on the varieties of worldviews in each, including the shifts in the last few decades, will come forward to enhance this page. Reformatikos

With all due respect to Reformatikos's impressive scholarship (and verbiage :P), I think this article is inappropriate as a Wikipedia entry and that he doesn't understand the nature of the critiscim of the article, as indicated by the comments in his reply. First of all, the purpose of the Wikipedia article is not to expound exhaustively upon a single claim. It is to present "objective fact" on a single subject, or, where that is impossible or insufficient (as it is almost always, except for articles on the sciences or math), to present a plurality of views upon a single subject. If there is no single Christian Viewpoint, then at the very least the article should presnet a number of Christian viewpoints that coexist in modern times and have existed historically. In this manner, the thesis of the current article, namely, the non-existance of a single, unified Christian viewpoint, would be implied by the article's content and structure rather than stated explicitly. Indeed, that the article begins with a thesis rather than with some sort of definition is a reflection of the problems of this article.

At any rate, the Christian viewpoint article is particularly important, as reflected in its position in the Christianity sidebar. It is not an auxilliary article; it is the leading article in the Christianity article group. As such, it should provide, at a glance, the worldviews of the largest modern Christian religions in such a way that would be comprehensible to a person with little or no contact with Christianity. Yet, at the same time, it should provide a deeper look into the perspectives of modern minority and historically significant branches of Christianity. Currently, the article instead makes an arguement about a single claim and provides support for the arguement. Furthermore, it assumes a degree of previous familiarity with Christianity. I think Reformatikos should know that encyclopedias are not scholarly journals, and that's the closest forum I can think of that would be appropriate for the article as it is currently written.--Conwiktion 05:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems that Reformatikos's reply is also full of esoteric and awkward language. That's okay in some contexts. :) However, I agree with Conwiktion in that Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal. This article needs to be accessible to the layman.

Also, Reformatikos has accused me of plagiarism and making a category mistake--but I am not sure what he is talking about; I haven't written on Christian Worldview on Wikipedia. I also have never before heard of Herman Dooyeweerd. If I have inadvertantly plagiarized outside of Wikpedia, I invite anyone to let me know on my talk page or in e-mail. I will correct any such plagiarism--but you gotta tell me where it is. He has also accused me of insisting on something regarding this topic, which I haven't done--again, I haven't written on Christian Worldview on Wikipedia. --Locarno 22:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

New Material

Please note the changes made to the article. Hopefully they will be seen as positive changes. Most of the previous sections have been put under one major heading, "Background." Then a "Key People and Literary Works" section has been added. A "Notes" section has been added. The Resources section has been given a name change to "Other Relevant Sources," and an "External Links" section has been initiated. I hope you don't mind me joining your article project and as always I'm open for discussion :-) --Awinger48 15:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

New Material

There are close to a million entries on "Christian Worldview" on the most popular search engine. I have not read them all, but most of what is presented as "Christian Worldview" though it proclaims the classic popular Christian Gospel, fails to make the distinction between the Old and New Testament of the Bible. The Old Testament was based on the Law and Justice, whereas in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ presented the New Testament which was based on mercy- Loving others unconditionally as God loves us. This is the worldview a true Christian would have. To love enemies, not destroy them. Jesus said "You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth (Old Testament Legalism), but Jesus goes on to say "But I say to you love your enemies, do good to those who despitefully use you, turn the other cheek." The true "Christian Worldview" is that- seeing the lost as Jesus sees them and loving others the way He loves us- this is absent in popular "Christianity" which is no different than the warring world. February 15, 2007 entry by Ron Decuir goodnuz.com 207.69.137.21 01:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Reason for the NPOV Tag?

I noticed the NPOV tag was added but after reading the article it's not clear what the issues is? It cam see how the article could use some structure changes and expansion but I don't see how the info that's currently there is not violates NPOV. If someone thinks the NPOV tag still belongs them please explain w3hy you think so? --Cab88 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Remove the non-neutrality flag

This article has issues. Th largest being there was no link to World view which addresses many of the comments above. I fixed this.

The second problem is it did not define World view - I copied from the referenced page what seemed appropriate for a definition and then provided a link to a good chapter in a book that discusses the specific topic of Biblical Worldview.

The article still needs work. Seems like people have noted this, but not followed thru? Is anyone watching this page??

The term "Biblical Worldview" is used extensively (even in wikipedia). This article needs more community support from knowledgable folks on the topic.

If I don't see some activity on this page I am going to remove the box (2007) since it is now 2011! --CCeducator (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The date in the tag was misleading. It was actually added in 2005. StAnselm (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian worldview. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060831113714/http://www.kuyper.org/main/publish/books_essays/article_17.shtml?page=1 to http://www.kuyper.org/main/publish/books_essays/article_17.shtml?page=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)