The Concept of Biblical Worldview - Essay Example

 Biblical Worldview Essay Table of contents Introduction…………………………………………………………….2 Main Essay…………..…………………………………………………2 Varying opinion..……………………………………………………….3 Conclusion…………….………………………………………………..4 References………………….…………………………………………..5 Introduction The word Biblical worldview is a concept originating from inspiration from the Bible. The purpose of this concept is to explain how the Bible views God, this life and world in which we live. In How shall we then live by Francis Schaeffer aims at using his forty years of research to help understand the flaws in the lives of individuals. The book also targets modern society as a whole. Using the different genres of art, philosophy, theology and sociology to better explain the alternative that will assist in improving lives. The solution is living by the Christian ethic which means full belief in the God’s revelations and following the Bible’s true words in value and morals. Thus by following these principles in his book, Schaeffer very potently states “"To understand where we are in today's world -- in our intellectual ideas and in our cultural and political lives -- we must trace three lines in history, namely, the philosophic, the scientific, and the religious." The book speaks of how worldviews affect society’s culture today. Schaeffer does this by sifting through the dense and concise folds of history. This era begins with the period of Ancient Rome and while covering major world events like the Renaissance and the Reformation it draws a close to the historic survey with a description of the world today. Chapter thirteen ends with a chapter known merely as “The Alternatives.” In it Schaeffer draws the conclusion to his book: the perfect solution to combat authoritarianism is for society to follow the Biblical worldview. Thus, by following the Biblical Worldview, individuals can lead a life in all its freedom and without any chaos, only if they succumb to the magnificence of the Bible and Christian ethic. Main Essay In the book How Now Shall We Live it is said “Because something is legal does not make it right. Nor can the will of the majority be confused with the will of God. They may be very different; in fact, they often are” (Colson, 148). This sentence was used in Colson’s argument over the Vietnam War and his desire to lay his life down in his country’s defense. Thus it can be said that society today has become so modernized that it is near impossible for the individual to try to make moral judgments by using God’s words and defying those of man. This can lead to a contradiction between the individual and the State because the world today follows a dictum that is not similar to that of God’s. To this Schaeffer states “Humanism has no final way of saying certain things are right and other things are wrong. For the humanist, the final thing which exists – that is, the impersonal universe – is neutral and silent about right and wrong, cruelty and non-cruelty. Humanism has no means to give absolutes; thus as a regular consequence of humanism’s standing, humanism in private morals and political life is left with that which is absolutely arbitrary.” Today, almost ever developed and successful world follows the policies of a democratic charter. Thus, how can an ordinary mortal combat against the will of the majority. This is why Schaeffer uses history to make a connection to the evolution of human morals and culture “There is a flow to history and culture; this very run is rooted and has its wellspring in the thoughts of individuals and groups of the same. People are distinctive in the inner life of their mind—what they are in their thought world leads to how they would behave by all means. This is fair and true of their value systems; it is true of their creativity. This also stands as the truth for their corporate actions, such as political decisions, and it is also a true point for their personal lives" (19). Schaeffer warns of a world where “sociological law” will take over any stable authority. This will allow the authority to state anything it wants as illegal by using the majority vote, even if it defies all forms of humanity. Schaeffer continues on this lack of humanity as he speaks of the adoption of a mechanistic approach to behaviorism. This allows individuals to view other living beings as inanimate machines and not to be acknowledged. He uses history to explain this concept as he talks of his fear of governmental bodies using this behaviorism approach to sieze more power, just as they had in Soviet Russia “in Russia, political prisoners are put in mental wards to be reconditioned” (239). He blames the media for further blinding the world from understanding and following the true moral ethic “"Television manipulates viewers just by its normal way of operating," because its images seem so compelling. The truth, however, stands the other way around only because the viewer is not granted a pristine receipt of objective practicality, but an "edited symbol or an edited image of the event" (240). To better explain this case, Schaeffer’s stand on abortion and euthanasia can be considered. He considered the breakdown of values to eventually lead to further violations of human life in the forms of euthanasia (the killing of the elderly) and infanticide. Thus the strong stance Schaeffer takes on Christian ethics shows how he is devoted to a pro-life ideology. Thus, in this book there are several issues on which he adopts a positive outlook, amongst them abortion and euthanasia. "As the Christian consensus dies, there are not many sociological alternatives," and, "...on this basis, if the majority vote supported it, it would become 'right' to kill the old, the incurably ill, the insane and other groups could be declared non-persons." He also supports the use of genetic engineering in the book. Thus, by Schaeffer carefully bonds moral ethics with that of religion to create a mix that will be acceptable to all. Varying Opinion However, while Schaeffer set out to better explain the differentiating culture and the need to enforce biblical values to return to a free and perfected social structure, other writers give their own opinions for the formation of a safe and ethical law. Harry Jones states in The Purpose of Law that the most important “In law as in ethics, the hardest task is often not the identification of values, but the assignment of priorities when, in a specific problem context, one value cannot be fully served without some sacrifice of another” (6). Schaeffer would contradict this view saying the most important edifice of any law should be the basis of Christianity as this alone would determine its success. Black talks of the supremacy of the court “The judgments of the highest court in any judicial system-state or national-are binding on all other courts when they deal with matters committed to the peculiar or exclusive jurisdiction of the court making the precedent.” This is exactly what Schaeffer fears: too much authority in what might not be responsible hands. In the work of Blackstone he concludes that a judge should make decisions “not according to his own private judgment; but according to the known laws and customs of the land; not delegated to pronounce a new law, but to maintain and expound the old one.” (7) This means that the law decided was by a majority. It enforces Schaeffer’s idea that one individual will find it impossible to stand against the State and defend Christian morals because of the decision made by many. Conclusion: Schaeffer derives a logical argument by following history. Despite the fact that he tries to cover a number of issues in one short novel and some aspects tend to be obscure, it does not deny the strengths and knowledge that can be derived from this book. References: Schaeffer. F (2005), How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture, Crossway Books. Black (1985) American Public School Law, Kern Alexander & M. David Alexander, West Publishing Company Blackstone (1985) American Public School Law, Kern Alexander & M. David Alexander, West Publishing Company Hanna Black (1985) American Public School Law, Kern Alexander & M. David Alexander, West Publishing Company Read More