June 16, 2011
Moreland begins his book by assessing the crisis of our age, analyzing the two primary competing worldviews—naturalism and postmodernism before suggesting a third alternative, the theistic worldview which he unpacks as the “Kingdom Triangle” in the second part of the book.
I appreciated Moreland’s previous work, Love Your God with All Your Mind, but I found the discussion of crisis of our age in the Kingdom Triangle lacking full dimension. I essentially agree that naturalism and postmodern views cannot match the brilliant drama of the kingdom. However, the logical analysis fails to capture that nuances and eclectic variety of the contemporary situation, placing the contours of the two perspectives in categories that might be better understood as a continuum, or even as a patchwork quilt that makes redemptive use of the old into something new. Still, Moreland correctly asserts “thinness” of a secularizing naturalism and a relativizing postmodernism is answered by the good news of God’s kingdom. Whether a person’s worldview is “thick” or “thin,” the good news of the kingdom requires a complete transformation of the heart, mind, soul, and strength.
Perhaps postmodernism was a necessary response to the deficiencies of the naturalistic/scientific perspective, articulating an insightful critique without the fullness of the life in the kingdom. Similarly, the naturalistic worldview was not completely corrupted, but also lacked the wholeness of the kingdom. In my experience, many folks belong simultaneously to both worlds, or perhaps find themselves between a convalescing naturalism and an adolescent postmodernism. Maybe I simply have no knowledge of people who are hardcore either way. And many “Christian” folks, like myself, may find themselves stepping into a third “drama” of Christ’s kingdom. Consistently or not, worldviews may overlap, and each individual and collective perspective must undergo radical revision in the light of the reality of God and under his domain. It is not clear to me that “Christianity” necessarily equals life in the kingdom. Even would be “Christian” worldviews must be brought into the obedience of faith, of life in God’s reality. My experience is that many “Christian” worldviews are surprisingly thin.
I do wish Moreland had spent a bit more time exploring a compelling vision of the kingdom in the first part of the book. His term “drama” seemed really promising at first, but faded into the silent stage curtains as he discussed the modern situation. Perhaps the logic of his case failed to appeal to me because I was looking for an appeal to the drama of imagination, which is also an important dimension of the intellectual life. I will need to give more thought to Moreland’s perspective on Intelligent Design and the implications of creation on worldview. I found it interesting that he so deeply appreciates Lee Strobel’s outstanding journalistic Case for Christ, but makes no reference, for example, to N. T. Wright’s compelling historical work in the New Testament and the People of God. Is it because Wright does not fit the “right” worldview category? I would love to hear more about this drama, anchored in real history, articulated in the Scriptures, accessible to our conflicted world in the unshakeable kingdom of God and unchanging person of Jesus Christ.
In the second and best part of the book, Moreland thoughtfully explores what this kingdom stuff involves. He offers helpful observations on how a person might practically apprentice themselves to Jesus to renew the mind, renovate the soul, and receive the Spirit’s power. Moreland orates effectively on all three counts. The annotated bibliography is especially useful for pursing the issues further. I was delighted to discover Moreland’s appropriate emphasis on the “third wave” issues; I had no idea Moreland was a Vineyard guy. This was a worthwhile book; it has helped me think, drawn me toward the kingdom and reminded me of significant treasures that I had momentarily misplaced.