Every so often, a book or article will denounce the concept of worldview for Christians. The claims, which vary from writer to writer, are usually a mix of legitimate critique and odd straw manning. Some argue that the German rationalist history of worldview makes it wrong, misguided, or even unbiblical for Christians. Others suggest that it reduces authentic faith to something too cerebral, too impersonal, or too formulaic. Perhaps the most common critique is that it just doesn’t “work” in today’s cultural environment.

That last critique extends to all Christian intellectual work, especially apologetics. For decades now, last rites have been offered for Christian intellectual pursuits but, to paraphrase Mark Twain’s comment about rumors of his own demise, rumors of the death of worldview and apologetics have been greatly exaggerated. In just the last few months, millions witnessed Wesley Huff use apologetics to share the Gospel with millions on Joe Rogan’s podcast and others, as well as Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger proclaim a new faith in Christ and attribute it to a long intellectual journey which involved a popular apologetics and evangelism website. The long history of Christian intellectual work includes philosophy, science, medicine, art, and virtually every area of human understanding. People still have questions, and the Bible provides answers. The life of the mind is a non-reducible aspect of the Christian faith.

The most common criticisms of Christian worldview as a concept have come from those who doubt objective truth, objective morality, and Christianity’s clear doctrinal stands, and yet still wish to identify as Christian. In the past, these critiques came from those who embraced more culturally and theologically liberal views. But more recently, critiques have come from the dissident Right as well. One critic for example complained that Christian worldview ideas, such as image of God and knowable truth, undermined their views about race and nationalism. He’s right. They do. There are clear implications of the Bible’s truth-claims about God, the universe, human dignity, and many other things.

A smaller set of criticism comes from Christians who found that a formulaic understanding of Christian worldview hadn’t “worked” the way they had either been told or thought. In their experience, the Christian worldview was presented as obvious, and the others as nonsense. Perhaps they were taught objectively that certain sins were in fact sins, but understanding that didn’t keep them from struggling. Or perhaps they had run-ins with obnoxious Christians who used worldview like a club to badger people into submission on narrow political opinions.

Worldview has been done badly but, as a movement, it’s been largely self-corrective. Some of the earliest champions of Christian worldview, such as Herman Bavinck and Herman Dooyeweerd, pushed worldview thinking away from the confusions of German rationalism. Almost every popular champion of Christian worldview, from James Sire to Nancy Pearcey to Francis Schaeffer to Chuck Colson, argued against reducing faith to cerebral formulas. More recently, many have worked to maintain the political ramifications of Christian truth without allowing the faith to be reduced to political partisanship.

Source