BERITH.ORG| BERITH.ORG |
|
|
|
Worldviews and Culture: Worldview and Theology The New Testament theologian N. T. Wright offers an introduction to the subject of worldview that is more perceptive and helpful than Kraft's, one that offers correctives for his views. In Wright's understanding, a worldview is a basically theological concept, for it answers questions about a persons ultimate concern. Though it may not contain what Western thought would regard as a "god" concept, it includes men's beliefs about ultimate reality and, therefore, answers questions that could be called theological. Worldviews are, he explains, "the basic stuff of human existence, the lens through which the world is seen, the blueprint for how one should live in it and above all the sense of identity and place which enables human beings to be what they are."[8] Wright adds a warning; the word "worldview" may lead us to think too much in terms of the metaphor of sight, whereas an adequate understanding will lead us to something broader.[9] Wright outlines "four things which worldviews characteristically do."[10] The first point on Wright's list, and the one which receives greatest emphasis, is that worldviews "provide the stories through which human beings view reality." This is a point not usually introduced in discussions of worldview, though according to Wright, "Narrative is the most characteristic expression of worldview, going deeper than the isolated observation or fragmented remark."[11] Second, worldviews answer basic questions that determine human existence: "who are we, where are we, what is wrong, and what is the solution."[12] Third, worldviews come to expression in cultural symbols, including both "artifacts and events." Passover, the temple, and the sacrifices, for example, were important cultural symbols for first century Jews. Whether or not one observes the symbols often determines whether one is in or out of the group. Fourth, worldviews determine "praxis" which Wright defines as "a way-of-being-in-the-world." This means simply that "the real shape of someone's worldview can often be seen in the sort of actions they perform, particularly if the actions are so instinctive or habitual as to be taken for granted."[13] Wright also speaks of the relationship between worldview and culture. When expounding the second point, he writes, "All cultures cherish deep-rooted beliefs which can in principle be called up to answer these questions."[14] The third point is explicitly stated as cultural in that "symbols" are said to be "cultural symbols." But Wright's exposition does not suggest that cultures determine worldviews in such a way that we should have to think of Abraham, Moses, and Daniel as possessing significantly different worldviews. On the contrary, they all share the same basic story of the world, though the story is a more fully developed one for Daniel than it is for Abraham or Moses. In Wright's view, culture "denotes particularly praxis and symbols of a society." The word "religion" he defines as focusing upon symbol and praxis but it "draws more specific attention to the fact that symbol and praxis point beyond themselves. To a controlling story or set of controlling stories which invest them with wider significance." Theology, in Wright's analysis, "concentrates on the questions and answers, and focuses specifically on certain aspects of them." The notions of "imagination and feeling" are included in his analysis, too, as referring to something which "can be plotted on the line between story and symbol" — not the most perspicuous point in the discussion. Mythology, another word that often comes up in worldview discussions, is "a way of integrating praxis and symbol with story and, at least implicitly, with answers to the key questions." The word "literature" refers to "a complex phenomenon in which, both explicitly and implicitly, stories are told, questions are raised and answered, praxis is exemplified, and symbols are either discussed directly or, more likely, alluded to in metaphor and other ways."[15] This relates culture explicitly to a certain aspect of the question of worldview and is amenable to the Biblical fact that there is a broad sense in which modern Christians may be said to share the same worldview with Noah or David, while at the same time giving due recognition to the very broad cultural differences between them and us. I agree with Wright's assertion that worldviews are "like the foundation of a house: vital but invisible." Societies look "through" rather than "at" them.[16] But the most important insight that Wright adds to the discussion is the fact that worldviews come to expression most especially in stories. In addition to the fact that it offers a refreshing and helpful perspective on what a worldview is, Wright's emphasis on narrative rings Biblically true, for a great deal of the Bible's teaching is occupied with historical matters given to us in extended narratives and specifically theological passages, like Paul's arguments in Romans and Hebrews, are filled with references to history, whether as proof, illustration, or background. Biblical poetry, too, which provides the prayers and songs for the worship of God's people, often rehearses history in order to praise God for His grace and glory and to provoke His people to repentance. The narratives of Biblical history, then, are woven into very fabric of revelation so that they do indeed form a central part of the Christian worldview. This means that the content of those narratives must be basic to our thought as well. In particular, the Biblical story of the world offers insight into the history of culture. Historical questions about culture, which are not even possible for the non-Christian to ask because of his evolutionary view of the world, become possible for the Christian who takes Biblical history seriously. For example, we can ask as a historical question: Which came first, culture or worldview? An answer is possible because we have the story of the beginning. We know that about 6000 years ago, Adam was created and God taught Adam about the world, giving him and his descendents a historical task. Adam had a worldview soon after he was created and before he developed anything that we would usually call culture, although it would not be impossible to say that the Garden of Eden had its own culture from the beginning. The same kind of situation re-occurs after the flood. Noah and his family certainly have a worldview and God has given them a new covenant that both reaffirms their worldview and also revises it with new revelation. But when Noah steps out of the ark, most of what we normally think of as culture is simply not present. All the same, it might not be entirely wrong to speak of culture of some sort even at that point or shortly thereafter. However we may wish to view the culture of Adam in the Garden and Noah after the flood, it remains the case that Adam and Noah both had a worldview before they had the kind of culture that anthropologists think of as producing a worldview, especially a worldview as sophisticated and well-developed as that of Adam and Noah. Biblical history shows us what modern anthropology cannot because the anthropologist's presuppositions, especially his evolutionary views of culture and world history, render impossible the kind of historical judgment we have suggested. If Kraft had taken the Biblical story more seriously, he would not have regarded culture as the source for worldview, but offered an analysis that moves in the opposite direction, for it was the worldviews of Adam and Noah that became the basis for the ancient civilizations. Ironically in both cases, the civilizations that grew out of their worldviews became apostate, Adam's worldview leading to the civilizations of Cain and the apostate Sethite civilization that was destroyed by the flood and Noah's worldview providing the foundation for the formation of the civilization of Babel and the dispersed nations that imitated Babel culture after the tower was judged. As N. T. Wright explains, all groups of people have a story and are defined by their story of the world. This is what makes the Biblical story of the creation so important. When Christians find it hard to take seriously the story of Adam and Even and the fall, or when they are embarrassed about the stories of Joshua's conquest or Jesus' miracles, they are departing from the Christian worldview in a fundamental way, whether they know it or not. The story of the evolution of the world that is told in the often seen picture of a series of creatures, beginning with an ape and gradually becoming more manlike until the final figure is clearly Homo sapiens, is so familiar to us that the picture tells it all. A picture of Noah's ark or the cross or a picture of a cup of wine and bread are supposed to do the same thing for Christians. But in our day, the story of evolution is taken by so many to be the deep story, the way things really happened, that the Biblical story is not taken seriously. Whether or not evolution was precisely the problem with Kraft, we are forced to conclude that he is not reading the Bible story with attention.
[8] N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), p. 124. [9] Ibid., pp. 122-23. [10] Ibid., p. 123. [11] Ibid. [12] Ibid. [13] Ibid., 124. [14] Ibid., 123. [15] Ibid., pp. 124-25. [16] Ibid., p. 125.
Table of Contents
|
|
|
|
