Book Review - Blah Blah Blah
In the Introduction to her book Total Truth, Nancy Pearcey discusses the burgeoning Christian interest in the topic of worldview. “Just a few years ago, when I began work on that earlier volume [How Now Shall We Live?], using the term worldview was not on anyone’s list of good conversation openers. To tell people that you were writing a book on worldview was to risk glazes stares and a quick change in subject. But today as I travel around the country, I sense an eagerness among evangelicals to move beyond a purely privatized faith, applying biblical principles to areas like work, business, and politics. Flip open any number of Christian publications and you’re likely to find half a dozen advertisements for worldview conferences, worldviewinstitutes, and worldviewprograms. Clearly the term itself has strong marketing cachet these days, which signals a deep hunger among Christians for an overarching framework to bring unity to their lives.”
It seems clear that what Pearcey says is true—the topic of worldview is gaining interest among Christians. I consider this a positive development, for when we understand worldview, we are better equipped to understand both ourselves and the culture we inhabit. Bayard Taylor’s Blah Blah Blah is a book dedicated to worldview, and one aimed squarely at the teen and college crowd.
And what is worldview? It is a word derived from the German word weltanschauung which means “look onto the world.” It describes, quite simply, a way of looking at the world. Every person has a worldview, which acts, according to Pearcey “like a mental map that tells us how to navigate the world effectively.” A worldview can be derived from any kind of ideology or influence. It can be Marxist, Darwinian, postmodern, biblical, or just about anything else. Taylor says, “Your worldview is your frame of reference, the spectacles through which you see the world. Worldview is the biggest determiner of human behavior. You might say you believe on way, but your real worldview is revealed by what you do.” Later he writes, “I’ll be using the word worldview to speak of people’s understanding of what is ultimately true and real about (1) the spiritual world, and (2) what it means to be human in this real world.” He lists five points that are true of all people: 1) Not everybody has a religion, but everybody has a worldview. 2) A worldview begins with a set of assumptions that can only be taken “by faith.” 3) Worldview assumptions are rarely acknowledged openly, questioned or challenged by those who hold them. 4) No worldview is totally open-minded; every worldview forces some narrowing of the mind. 5) Every worldview has strict and inflexible rules, or Absolutes, that must never be broken.
Taylor then introduces the “worldview zoo,” six categories of worldviews that quite adequately encompass the range of worldviews which is, in reality, as large as the number of people on the earth. He arrives at the haunted worldview, the biblical worldview, the WYSIWYG worldview, the dueling yodas worldview, the omnipresent supergalactic oneness worldview, and designer religion. The rest of the book is dedicated to explaining these worldviews and to interpreting them. The weaknesses of the worldviews are exposed and the biblical worldview is shown to be the only one that can be consistent with Scripture. Ultimately, this book is about “laying the foundation and spinning a web for the Biblical worldview.”
And, on the whole, I think Taylor does a good job. Worldview is not my area of expertise, but I do feel that he covered the topics well and did a good job of defending a biblical worldview. In fact, my only real critique would be that his understanding of “Christian” may be a good deal wider than mine. Thus his understanding of what can constitute a biblical worldview would also be wider. Still, this is seen in only a few short paragraphs and does not detract a great deal from the book.
Written and presented in a way that will appeal to teens and college students, but will not drive away adult readers, Blah Blah Blah covers an important topic. This book will equip Christians, and primarily young Christians, to deal with the culture around them. It will help prepare Christians both spiritually and mentally to face a world that is increasingly post-Christian.




Comments (30) »
1. garret
October 17, 2006
10:25 AM
I believe it is vitally important for Christian’s to understand that there are many varying “worldview’s” and that a dominant one in our culture today is postmodernism.
Why is it so important? Because we need to know what makes people tick if we are truly going to be effective witnesses of the gospel. It simply isn’t enough anymore to limit ourselves to quoting scripture to people who have no trust in the scripture and who have a postmodern, moral relativistic worldview. Don’t misunderstand me, we must know scripture and we must proclaim Christ. But we must also learn how to dissect and dismantle the placebo worldviews that only seem to work but in the end, are not true and only lead to despair. We must then be able to show how the gospel is not only true, but because it’s true, it works.
I need to get a hold of this book as this arena is very interesting to me. I would also highly recommend any of Tim Keller’s sermon’s/lecture’s as well as anything he has written regarding preaching the gospel in a postmodern city/world.
2. Brian T. at VoiceoftheSheep
October 17, 2006
12:33 PM
Why is it so important? Because we need to know what makes people tick if we are truly going to be effective witnesses of the gospel.
Garret,
I understand and appreciate your passion, but I must disagree with you. The only way we are truly going to be effective witnesses of the gospel is to clearly present the gospel…NOT by knowing what makes people tick.
Although, that is easily known, as what makes people tick is their depravity.
Brian
3. Tim Challies
October 17, 2006
1:47 PM
“I understand and appreciate your passion, but I must disagree with you. The only way we are truly going to be effective witnesses of the gospel is to clearly present the gospel…NOT by knowing what makes people tick.”
And I disagree with Brian…to some extent. I think both are important. By knowing what makes people tick we can approach them in the way that is best able to answer their particular worldview. I agree that the message is most important, but we can be most effective by also understanding the person to whom we evangelize.
4. Brian T. at VoiceoftheSheep
October 17, 2006
2:18 PM
And I disagree with Brian…to some extent.
You just like disagreeing with me ;-)
Here is something to think about, though. How much did Peter have to know about what made Cornelius and his family ‘tick’, for his message to be effective? How much did Paul have to know about what made Lydia ‘tick’ for his words to open her heart so that she could understand what he was saying?
I would put forth that knowing what makes someone tick adds nothing to the effectiveness of a clear proclamation of the gospel. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ…not by the word of Christ + knowing what makes someone tick…but that is just my opinion.
Brian
5. Brian T. at VoiceoftheSheep
October 17, 2006
2:45 PM
ps…
Can I ammend my previous post? I would like to make it clear that I am not opposed to engaging the world and the culture at large, including engaging those around us on specific world issues based upon a biblical worldview. My disagreement with garret was specifically on a statement that I took as indicating that the gospel needs help to be effective. That is all.
Thanks.
6. Chris
October 17, 2006
2:48 PM
I volunteer with a youth group at the high school level and have been in discipleship relationship with teenagers for over two years (the same teenagers too). I believe that this issue of worldview is staggeringly important. I can not tell you how many times that going through Scripture and dealing with life-stuff will be stifled by just utter misunderstandings of the very basics of reality (what man truly is, the centrality of the Cross in all of life, etc). There is a clear indoctrination by much of the institutions that teenagers are involved with, and they’ve had a very profound effect. I believe whats coming from the pulpit and parents does not focus enough on “the story” we truly are in, but rather takes it as an assumption these kids know it already. This book sounds like one that would be good for any high schooler to read. Thanks for the review, I’ll consider buying it (hey I’m a college student, I’ve got limited funds).
7. Tim Challies
October 17, 2006
3:07 PM
“My disagreement with garret was specifically on a statement that I took as indicating that the gospel needs help to be effective. That is all.”
I don’t think the gospel needs help to be effective, but I do think that we can make the gospel most effective in our presentation. It is easy to shoot straight for God’s sovereignty in election and bypass our responsibility to present it in a way that is effective, but I don’t think we should do that. For a somewhat-unfair example, look at language. I can’t present the gospel in English to a person who speaks only French. In the same way, I may have to choose different words and different themes depending on the person I am speaking to. Worldview helps me understand which words and which themes will speak best to a particular kind of person.
8. Vickie (wildjoy)
October 17, 2006
3:44 PM
Tim, I think you make an excellent point. Studying worldview was an important part of my missions preparation. I think your English/French example is very good. I wouldn’t call it unfair, just exaggerated to make the point.
Brian, as to your questions about Peter/Cornelius and Paul/Lydia, I think that the closer someone elses worldview is to our own, the less we need to think about worldview. When I moved to Brazil knowing only English, the first (and glaringly obvious) adjustment I needed to make in order to share the gospel in a manner relevant to the Brazilian worldview was to learn Portuguese. But, language is only a part of the learning of culture (worldview) in order to share the gospel effectively.
As we become more Christlike, our worldview should become more biblical. So, even in our own culture, we don’t share the same worldview as the culture at large. For this reason, I feel it’s valuable to recognize there are differences in the way the world thinks vs. the way we think, and try to understand those differences in order to be winsome in our presentation of the gospel.
I see ‘worldview sensitivity’ as a means to be inoffensive in sharing the gospel. The gospel is offensive to those who are perishing, but my prayer is that I would never be offensive in sharing it.
9. Vickie (wildjoy)
October 17, 2006
3:47 PM
Opps, I didn’t close my HTML tag above. I didn’t mean to add so much emphasis in my second-to-last paragraph, just the word ‘are’.
10. Brian Thornton
October 17, 2006
5:19 PM
I understand and agree that we must engage to a certain degree…speaking the same language, for example. But I am curious what others think about how far we need to go to make the gospel most effective (to use Tim’s words) in our presentation, other than speaking the same language.
What else did Peter have to do to make the gospel most effective in his presentation with Cornelious and his family other than speak the same language? What other worldview sensitivities did Peter have to be aware of in order to effectively proclaim the gospel to them?
What understanding of Lydia’s worldview did Paul have to be aware of (other than what language she spoke) to make the gospel most effective in his presentation? These are not rhetorical questions…I want to make sure that I am not missing something here.
Tim, can you , or others, provide any other examples (in addition to language, which I agree with) of how this would play out when talking to someone about the gospel?
Vickie said: The gospel is offensive to those who are perishing, but my prayer is that I would never be offensive in sharing it.
Vickie, I like what Mark Dever has said on this:
“One part of clarity sometimes missed by earnest evangelists, however, is the willingness to offend. Clarity with the claims of Christ certainly will include the translation of the Gospel into words that our hearer understands, but it doesn’t necessarily mean translating it into words that our hearer will like. Too often advocates of relevant evangelism verge over into being advocates of irrelevant non-evangelism. A gospel which in no way offends the sinner has not been understood.”
Dever is currently writing a book on evangelism, which I can’t wait to get ahold of. Over at the T4G blog back in August, he stressed what he believed to be the most important aspect of an effective gospel presentation…clarity.
Is there anything else that someone can think of that would go along with this mindset of making sure one is clear in the presentation of the gospel, or are there other things we must be aware of in addition to clarity that would make the gosepl more effective?
Thanks.
11. Tim T.
October 17, 2006
5:34 PM
People involved in crosscultural ministry (as I am) understand well the need to address the listener’s worldview. Sure, the gospel is offensive to those who are perishing, but they gotta comprehend it before they can be properly offended by it. :-)
12. Brian Thornton
October 17, 2006
5:39 PM
Sure, the gospel is offensive to those who are perishing, but they gotta comprehend it before they can be properly offended by it.
Tim T… Does that include doing anything other than making sure you are clear in your presentation of the gospel? What else needs to be done in order for them to comprehend the message?
Thanks.
13. Joanna
October 17, 2006
6:01 PM
My 14 year old homeschooled son is studying his way through this worldview course-
http://www.cornerstonecurriculum.com/Curriculum/SP/sp.htm#Complet
One obvious way of keeping your children from being indoctrinated with a wrong worldview is to teach them at home.
14. garret
October 18, 2006
8:55 AM
I would like to respond to the issue of Paul’s understanding of differing worldviews by pointing to Acts 17:16-34. It shows that Paul was teaching the Jews and devout people in the synagogues and that the pagan’s were listening on and became curious. Note that Paul had been teaching for some time, perhaps months or more. As the pagan’s, who had no knowledge of God, wanted to know more, Paul addressed them on their own territory, referring to their statues and their religiosity, and then made a very logical progression into the gospel: Your unknown god whom you believe to be created is God, THE Creator, He is sovereign and is worthy of our worship, He is merciful, and overlooked sinful ignorance (this is grace). He commanded repentance (since grace comes before repentance, Paul is speaking to the elect) and sent His only Son to die an atoning death and to be raised in a redemptive resurrection. Furthermore, the elect in that crowd believed while the non-elect mocked.
The point is, the message must never be watered down or changed (as Paul pronounces damnation on those who change it in Galatians 1:9), but it must certainly be adapted to the hearer’s worldview - the individual must be taken into consideration.
15. garret
October 18, 2006
8:59 AM
I forgot to add this link to my last post. It is Tim Keller’s article on Preaching the Gospel In A Postmodern City.
http://www.redeemer2.com/themovement/issues/2004/june/postmoderncity1p1.html
16. Brian T. at VoiceoftheSheep
October 18, 2006
9:50 AM
Garret,
How would this whole concept of being relevant with respect to one’s worldview (other than language) play out today when presenting the gospel?
Can you - or others - give some examples of what this would look like in today’s world?
Thanks.
17. David Schweissing
October 18, 2006
3:04 PM
Brian,
Having seen your questions on this a number of times now (which is a good thing!), I think there are a some resources that might help us understand what’s meant when we talk about “contextualizing” ministry or “adapting” the gospel to communicate to a particular worldview. Tim Keller did some lectures on this a while back: “Contextualizing Ministry: Wisdom or Compromise?” and “Preaching to Believers and Unbelievers,” which you can find on Covenant Seminary’s website here:
www.covenantseminary.edu/resource/
I don’t know html tags to make that a link, but there’s the address. Just type “Tim Keller” into the search box & the lectures should come up so you can download.
18. Brian T. at VoiceoftheSheep
October 18, 2006
5:20 PM
Thanks, David.
I will check those out.
Brian
19. Benny G in Boston
October 18, 2006
5:56 PM
To Brian,
You said: “I understand and agree that we must engage to a certain degree…speaking the same language, for example. But I am curious what others think about how far we need to go to make the gospel most effective (to use Tim’s words) in our presentation, other than speaking the same language.”
One essential element of the Gospel message is awareness of sin. In order to get a nonbeliever to be aware of their need for salvation, we need to be able to point out sin. This is an example of where knowing someone’s worldview matters. We need to know what issues face someone. You can see this in the letters of Paul to the various churches - he didn’t write to the Ephesians the same way he wrote to the Corinthians, because they faced different issues. Granted, he was writing primarily to believers, but I think the principle applies. To use a watered down example: in evangelizing my postmodern neighbors, I don’t need to go harping on polygamy, because its not something they face. I do need to point out inconsistancies in thier worldview, because it can cause them to see themselves as sinners in need of the Saviour.
Ben
20. Brian T. at Voiceofthesheep
October 18, 2006
7:21 PM
Ben,
Why would I need to discuss specific sins based upon someone’s worldview in order for the gospel to be effective?
I do not see Peter doing that with Cornelious, nor do I see it with Paul in the Areopagus.
You say we need to know what issues face someone…I guess I would say that the only real issue we need to know that someone faces is their depraved nature and state of death as a natural (unsaved) human who is storing up wrath for themselves with every day that they live apart from the righteousness of Christ.
Can you provide any Scriptural examples of what you are talking about, other than Paul’s letters to churches?
Your example of Paul’s letters is not a relevant one, I don’t think, specifically because they were written to churches, intended for believers.
Thanks.
21. Tim Challies
October 18, 2006
8:23 PM
Brian - I have been reading through Matthew with the family and just finished listening to John on my iPod. I’ve been struck at the “contextualization” of the gospels. It is obvious that each is intended for a different audience and each is written in a style appropriate to that audience. Just note the number of “this was to fulfill the word spoken by…” in Matthew and you know immediately who the target is. The message is the same, but is wrapped in different packaging.
I thought Keller’s message at the DG conference was somewhat helpful in this regard, though not as much as I may have hoped. Still, I think he and Driscoll both made the point that what was once effective in presenting the gospel is now not as effective. The message remains the same, but the presentation has to change. Maybe this is all just God’s way of keeping us on our toes and not allowing us to become complacent.
22. Brian T. at VoiceoftheSheep
October 18, 2006
8:59 PM
Tim,
I understand what you are saying about the differences of the styles and delivery of each of the gospels, and I do agree that there are obviously variations from one to another (like from Matthew to John). I guess I am afraid the church will go too far in contextualizing the message (as much of it has done already), and in doing so, will completely lose the message itself.
I have not yet listened to Keller’s address from the DG06 conference, but will make a point to do that. I did listen to Driscoll’s, and thought he had some good things to say about this point, though I struggle, I guess, with where the line should be drawn.
Thanks
23. Eric
October 18, 2006
10:39 PM
Brian,
You ask what one needs to do to effectively preach the gospel other than to preach it clearly. But how do you know if you’ve been clear? This whole business of learning about worldviews and contextualizing is not something extra that is tacked on to clear gospel preaching; it’s simply a means of making your gospel preaching clear. If your evangelee doesn’t have categories for personal sin or absolute truth, you may have to spend a little extra time on those topics when you present the gospel. Otherwise you won’t have been clear — even if you did cover God, Man, Christ, and Response.
-Eric
24. Tim T.
October 19, 2006
12:40 PM
Re #12 (Brian Thornton): Does that include doing anything other than making sure you are clear in your presentation of the gospel? What else needs to be done in order for them to comprehend the message?
Yes to your first question…I need to do whatever it takes to make sure that communication is actually taking place. A worldview can filter words and change their meaning, so it’s good to know the assumptions of the listener’s worldview ahead of time so that harmful assumptions can be deconstructed.
25. Brian T. at VoiceoftheSheep
October 19, 2006
1:26 PM
A worldview can filter words and change their meaning, so it’s good to know the assumptions of the listener’s worldview ahead of time so that harmful assumptions can be deconstructed.
What if you are talking to multiple people at the same time with more than one worldview present?
How would that play out with, say, Peter…speaking on the day of Pentecost to people from more than a dozen countries and various backgrounds at the same time? Were all of the 3000 peolpe saved that day from the same worldview perspective?
Or with Cornelius and his family…how much did Peter know of the assumptions of their worldview before he began talking to them about the gospel?
Please note that I am not necessarily disagreeing with you…just trying to see how all this works out in biblical examples we have in Scripture.
Thanks.
26. Tim T.
October 19, 2006
2:40 PM
How would that play out with, say, Peter…speaking on the day of Pentecost to people from more than a dozen countries and various backgrounds at the same time? Were all of the 3000 peolpe saved that day from the same worldview perspective?
Actually, yes. They were all Jews, which at that time transcended geographic location.
Or with Cornelius and his family…how much did Peter know of the assumptions of their worldview before he began talking to them about the gospel?
Acts 10:2 “He and all his family were devout and God-fearing”
If I understand this correctly, Cornelius and his family had pretty much adopted the Jewish worldview without actually converting.
So at least with your examples, there was very little worldview distance between speaker and listener.
27. Tim T.
October 19, 2006
2:45 PM
What if you are talking to multiple people at the same time with more than one worldview present?
That’s a good question. If the listeners represent significantly divergent worldviews, it may be very difficult to deliver the gospel presentation in a way that would make sense to every listener (unless you are willing to entertain one-on-one interaction in front of the entire group to resolve misunderstandings).
28. Tim T.
October 19, 2006
2:55 PM
A worldview can filter words and change their meaning, so it’s good to know the assumptions of the listener’s worldview ahead of time so that harmful assumptions can be deconstructed.
Okay, I’m gonna comment on my own comment. Here’s an example that I came across this week. Many of the Chinese graduate students our church works with would object strongly to the part of the gospel message that calls all people sinners.
The objection doesn’t come from a belief that they never do anything wrong, it comes from the perception that the term “sin” refers to Bad Things on the order of what Hitler did. So, the gospel presentation would have to be adjusted to clarify what the Bible means when it speaks of “sin”.
When preaching the gospel to someone who has grown up in a Christian context, the meaning of that word would probably not be an issue at all.
29. Vickie (wildjoy)
October 20, 2006
8:00 AM
I have a cross-cultural (2 different world views) illustration from within the church, but I don’t think it’ll be too much of a leap for us to apply it to evangelism.
Many months ago, an ‘incident’ occurred in our family indirectly involving a couple (B & A) in one of our churches here in the city. We count this couple as dear friends and didn’t take offence or in any way blame them.
Recently, I was talking about it with A and she began to cry and told me how badly she & B felt about it. Also, that they wondered if we had taken offence at them personally—she said that she felt we were perhaps acting differently toward them.
She cited a specific example. A couple of months ago, many of us from the churches were at the airport to welcome a missionary back to the field. When you’re with a group like that, it’s expected that you’ll personally greet each individual with a hug & a kiss. (Actually, 3 kisses.) Sometimes, this is a bit wearying to me, so I take the liberty with my close friends to just greet them with a wave and ‘hello’ from across the way. That’s what I’d done that day with B & A. The enemy used it in their minds to ‘confirm’ that we were indeed offended and that we were being cool toward them.
I asked forgiveness for that—clearly not something I’d ever have to ask forgiveness for in the US. I need to be aware of—and conform to—the differences that exist between my 2 cultures so I won’t be misunderstood and misinterpreted.
I suppose that’s what I was getting at when I said that it’s OK with me if the gospel itself is offensive—and it will be! But, I don’t ever want to be offensive and cloud the gospel message.
V
30. Bayard Taylor
October 22, 2006
8:54 PM
Thanks to everybody so far for their thoughts.
When I wrote Blah, it was all about helping people become more confident, effective representatives of Christian faith in an increasingly pluralistic culture.
To accomplish this, it’s important first to solidify discipleship, getting Christians to understand what makes Christian faith unique and valuable. If we can get people to understand better the worldview deficits others are dealing with, they’ll get more excited about Jesus. As a result, they’ll more empathetically and enthusiastically share “the hope that is within [them].”
Ultimately, we don’t convince anybody to become Christians. It’s the Holy Spirit’s job to make the gospel “click” in somebody else’s heart and mind.