This fall, I’m teaching a course on worldview analysis for the first time. Of course, I’ve discussed worldview extensively in other courses, but this is the first time I’ve taught a course specifically on worldview.
In preparation for this course, I’ve read or re-read about forty books, including James Sire’s The Universe Next Door and Naming the Elephant, as well as David Naugle’s Worldview, Modern Social Imaginaries by Charles Taylor, Calvinism for a Secular Age edited by Jessica Joustra, Herman Dooyeweerd’s Roots of Western Culture, James Orr’s The Christian View of God and the World, the Cultural Liturgies series from James K.A. Smith, and Jacob Alan Cook’s Worldview Theory, Whiteness, and the Future of Evangelical Faith. Chapter 5 in Reforming Apologetics by J.V. Fesko has been helpful, and so have volume 4 of God, Revelation, and Authority by Carl F.H. Henry and The God Who Is There by Francis Schaeffer. And, of course, I’ve reviewed my most recent readings of Herman Bavinck’s Christian Worldview and Abraham Kuyper’s Stone Lectures as well.
In the past when I’ve discussed worldview, I’ve defined “worldview” using James Sire’s definition from Naming the Elephant, but for this course I am considering a somewhat different way of defining “worldview.” And so, I’ve written a first draft, which will almost certainly be revised at least a few times and perhaps discarded altogether.
With that in mind, could you let me know what you think of this tentative formulation?
“A worldview is a set of pretheoretical commitments or presuppositions, of which the individual may or may not be aware, which have been shaped by the narratives, experiences, and community by which the individual makes sense of his or her world. These pretheoretical commitments influence the individual’s embodied habits which, in turn, orient and reinforce his or her loves and desires.”
A few observations that may be helpful: I contend—contra Wilhelm Dilthey and Abraham Kuyper, albeit in different ways—that one’s worldview does not necessarily derive from a single principle. Worldview derives from a navigation of the multiple narratives of one’s life that seeks to find unity in these stories. I further argue that many strands in the neo-Calvinist understanding of worldview fail to account adequately for
(1) the narratival aspects of worldview formation,
(2) the persistent impact of the noetic effect of the Fall even after regeneration, and
(3) the role that our bodies and habits have in worldview formation.
And so, what does the definition above get right?
What does it say that it shouldn’t?
And what should it say that it doesn’t?
Let me know in the comments below.
Hey, this is great! Including (meta)narrative is spot on, too. That said, I think one aspect of worldview that could be explored more thoroughly, in general, is love. Christ does say the most important commandment is to 'love Lord and neighbour' (Mark 12:29-30). In Luke, he says all the commandments "hinge" on this law. It's foundational. So if someone does not do this in any capacity, particularly loving God, what does this look like and how does that work in regard to worldview forming? If it's foundational for Christ, then the lack of love must be foundational for all, I would think. In other words, rather than worldview informing how we love, how does love inform how we see (worldview).
I find that when one uses "narrative" in an aspect of defining worldview, one should look at metanarrative also so as to not exclude the post-modernists, or post-postmodernists, etc. All other aspects of the definition you use is very descriptive, analytical, and synonymous with worldview in its general sense of meaning. I have also read many of the resources you quote and would add that a perusal of some of the following might be helpful: "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics" by William Lane Craig on pp. 229-30 and 189; "Transforming Worldviews: An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change" by Paul G. Hebert in various sections; and "Revolutions in Worldview: Understanding the Flow of Western Thought" edited by W. Andrew Hoffecker, especially Michael W. Payne's input starting on p.318 ( the text's. Definitions in the back are helpful as well. Just my thoughts.