Weltanschauung

The recent aftermath of Hurricane Katrina provides a poignant backdrop for discussions of
worldview as a concept. How does one explain the harsh contrast of the almost instant descent
into anarchylooters and gangs shooting at rescuersto the altruistic heroics of others in
search, rescue and relief efforts? Why do some destroy, some blame and others selflessly meet
needs? Is it solely circumstantial or something deeper? From where do their various
presuppositions about the value of life, the ethics of property rights and motivation for the good
of others spring and why are they so different? Beneath any discussion of ethics, societal norms
or environmental triggers lies another, more basic, point: that which is normally taken for
granted by the personworldview. As Charles Colson points out in a recent Breakpoint
commentary regarding the dichotomous scene in New Orleans, "In the aftermath of one of the
worst disasters in American history, we ought to remind our neighbors that only the Christian
worldview explains the otherwise bewildering events we have watched on television: We saw the
depravityexactly what happens when governing restraints are withdrawn. And we saw human
compassion at its glorious best."
The concept of worldview has been popularized of late, appearing in usages from news stories to
Sunday school curricula. But just what is a worldview? From what line of thinking and from
whom did this construct emerge and develop? The graphic image above of a heart-shaped world
within a telescope represents the essence of "worldview" as defined by Dr. David Naugle, author
of Worldview: The History of a Concept (Eerdmans, 2002). Among other insights he provides,
the notion of worldview as handed down by such Christian reformers as Kuyper and Schaeffer
basically parallels the biblical concept of the heart. Generally, one's worldview "constitutes the
symbolic universe that has profound implications on a variety of significant human practices. It
digs the channels in which the waters of reason flow. It establishes the hermeneutic framework
by which texts are interpreted. It is that mental medium through which world is known,"
according to Naugle. Thus, a worldview is both personally held and exists outside the knower.
This is key to discussions of worldview regarding relativism.
Naugle takes the topic deep, coursing through the history of philosophy and such thinkers as
Aristotle, Descartes, and Kant, originator of the term Weltanschauung, or worldview. Naugle
explores the relationship of worldview to hermeneutics, the formal study of
interpretation, through the writings of philosophers like Wilhelm Dilthey, Edumund Husserl,
Martin Heidegger and Hans-Georg Gadamer. He summarizes the impact of Protestant
evangelicals, who have taken the concept to new heights, including John Calvin, James Orr,
Abraham Kuyper, Carl F.H. Henry and Francis Schaeffer.
As Colson claimed, these theologians on the latter list believe that the story of mankind's
creation, fall and redemption is a worldview that comports with and interprets reality better than
any other. Two books by Nancy Pearcey and Colson and Pearcey make that case and are
reviewed below.
This collection could have taken several tacks; we provide a thoroughly Christian approach with
examples of worldview-based work mostly by evidentialist apologists. We were unable to

provide from the rich variety of other approaches by such thinkers as neo-Thomists Jacques
Barzun and Jacques Maritain. Nor are there time or resources to explore other than Christian
conceptions of worldview, except as discussed briefly by the authors presented. Perhaps this
Special Focus will grow in the future to engage some of those. Regardless, it is fruitless to argue
about the hope of some Cartesian objectivity in discussion of worldview. As Naugle states, "Any
view of worldview is itself worldview dependent," so since there is no way to come at the
subject free from prejudice, we have only attempted to fairly portray this angle.