The Portable Seminary reviews Rethinking Worldview

Back in February, Paul Luedtke, a doctoral student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School reviewed Rethinking Worldview for The Portable Seminary. He writes: "...Re-thinking Worldview remains an important book and deserves a serious read because Bertrand’s approach is fresh, informed, and anchored in a global context." I particularly appreciate this observation:

"This book is of particular interest to those trying to understand, and engage the culture that surrounds them. In view of the current 'culture wars', where Evangelicals often see culture as something to either battle against or be isolated from, the author shows how correctly understanding a Biblical worldview and 'asking worldview questions' can be 'a way to open up the culture to deeper scrutiny. It ought to provide a fuller, richer experience of the world around us.'"

He does take me to task for not demonstrating why correspondence, coherence and productivity are good tests for the validity of a worldview, and he found the alliteration (worldview, wisdom, witness) forced. My response? You may have a point.

I should take this opportunity to point out what a great resource The Portable Seminary is. If you want to take your theological education further, it's an excellent starting point.

Comments

[Darrell]

Mark, I have not read your book. Given your view that Mr. Luedtken takes you to "task," I'm just curious, -in the book are you supporting the modern notion of a "correspondence" theory of truth or are you noting something more similar to a post-modern take on such theories which is basically that such theories are only helpful to a point and can otherwise be somewhat unhelpful?

[J. Mark Bertrand]

Darrell, the section in question is about a page and a half long (pp. 33-34), and I don't really engage in a philosophical discussion. Rather, I approach the rival (and complementary) theories as tools. Instead of championing one over another, I take it for granted that we use all three -- trusting things that seem to correspond to external reality, trusting things that fit with what we already know, trusting things that solve problems other assumptions don't -- and we don't use any of them exclusively or absolutely. (And we use them cumulatively, too, not in an either/or fashion.) It might help if I quote the conclusion of the passage:

"These three tools are good as far as they go, but they are not necessarily conclusive. Sometimes a lie seems more coherent and consistent than the truth, so when we ask whether worldviews correspond to reality, whether they cohere and produce results, we have to admit that we're the ones asking -- i.e., subjective people and, according to Christian doctrine, fallen too. This is all part of the struggle that is worldview. We are constantly wrestling with ideas while we question our own ability to judge, always acting decisively only to look back with doubts after the fact." (p. 33)

Now I suspect there are people who would classify that as the "postmodern" approach, but to me it's more like common sense. The "modern/postmodern" dichotomy is really only useful as an entry-point -- or as a bit of polemic sleight-of-hand by which I can dismiss things by labeling them modernist to some audiences or postmodernist to others. In reality, the specifics of the argument are more important than the broad label.

I hope this helps -- and if it raises any additional questions, feel free to ask!