A PRESENTATION OF ONE INTERPRETATION OF ‘THE’ CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW
[NOTE: page numbers below refer to the 1st 2009 edition, not the 2025 edition.]
General Editor (and pastor, etc.) John MacArthur wrote in the Preface of this 2003 book, “In an era of postmodern influence that advocates that there are no absolutes and that everyone’s opinion is of equal value, this volume issues a serious call to recover a Christian worldview that is absolute and exclusive. As many individual believers, conservative evangelical churches, and Christian schools drift away from a high view of God and His Word, their worldview will be compromised by error. These essays are intended to reaffirm and restore a biblically-based view of life’s reality from God’s perspective; some of the content is intended to be prescriptive and some proscriptive… this book will help refocus proper attention on God’s understanding of the world in which one lives.”
The Introduction explains, “What is a worldview?... A worldview is, first of all, an explanation and interpretation of the world and second, an application of this view to life… Every worldview starts with PRESUPPOSITIONS—i.e., beliefs that one presumes to be true without supporting independent evidence from other sources or systems. Interpreting reality, in part or in whole, requires that one adopt an interpretive stance since there is no ‘neutral’ thought in the universe. This becomes the foundation upon which one builds… let it be stated that two major presuppositions underlie that chapters that follow: the first will be eternal existence of the personal, transcendent, triune, Creator God. Second, the God of Scripture has revealed His character, purposes, and will in the infallible and inerrant pages of His special revelation, the Bible, which is superior to any other source of revelation or human reason alone.” (Pg. 13-14)
It continues, “Are there any common misperceptions about the Christian worldview, especially by Christians? There are at least two mistaken notions. The first is that a Christian view of the world and life will differ on all points from other worldviews… especially as they relate to the character of God, the nature and value of Scripture, and the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. The second is that the Bible contains all that we need to know. Common sense should put this misdirected thought out of business. However, it is true that the Bible contains all that Christians need to know about their spiritual life and godliness through a knowledge of the one true God… Also, while it does not exhaustively address every field, when Scripture speaks in any subject area, it speaks authoritatively.” (Pg. 15)
Richard L. Mayhue states in his essay, “Are divine revelation and human reason like oil and water---do they never mix? Christians have sometimes reached two erroneous extremes in dealing with divine revelation and human reason. First, there is ‘anti-intellectualism,’ which basically concludes that if a subject matter is not discussed in the Bible, it is not worthy of serious study/thought. Or, only what the Bible teaches on a topic should be examined. This unbiblical approach … leads to cultural and intellectual withdrawal. At the opposite extreme is ‘hyper-intellectualism,’ which embraces natural revelation at the same or at a higher level of value and credibility as God’s special revelation in Scripture; when the two are in conflict, natural revelation is the preferred source of truth. This unbiblical approach results in scriptural withdrawal. This matter is not resolved with an either/or approach but rather with a both/and process… Where the Bible speaks to a discipline, its truth is superior. When the Bible does not speak, there is a whole world of God’s creation to explore for knowledge, but with the caveat that man’s ability to draw conclusions is fallible, unlike God’s Word.” (Pg. 50)
John MacArthur asserts about astronomer Carl Sagan’s posthumous book, “Although Sagan tried to maintain a semblance of optimism to the bitter end, his religion led where all naturalism inevitably leads, to a sense of utter insignificance and despair… It would be nice if we somehow managed to solve some of our problems, but whether we do or not will ultimately be a forgotten bit of cosmic trivia. That, said Sagan, is a perspective well worth pondering. All of this underscores the spiritual barrenness of naturalism.” (Pg. 58)
He continues, “over the past couple of decades, large numbers of evangelicals have shown a surprising willingness to take a completely non-evangelical approach to interpreting the early chapters of Genesis. More and more are embracing the view known as ‘old-earth creationism,’ which blends some of the principles of biblical creationism with naturalistic and evolutionary theories, seeking to reconcile two opposing worldviews. And in order to accomplish this, old-earth creationists end up explaining away rather than honestly exegeting the biblical creation account… I am convinced that Genesis 1-3 ought to be taken at face value… Nothing about the Genesis text itself suggests that the biblical creation account is merely symbolic… or mythical.” (Pg. 61)
Mark A. Tatlock advises, “Confronting issues of racial and economic prejudice is part of … the work of the church. Left without a Christan response, advocates for the poor or minorities must turn to political means for relief… Without the church leading the way, secular agendas of multiculturalism, diversity, tolerance, and racial reconciliation provide only a humanistic, man-centered solution.” (Pg. 130)
Stuart W. Scott observes, “The fact that men and women were created with differences does not mean they are different in every way. Both genders are equal personally and spiritually… [But] Many are not aware … that the differences of God’s design for the sexes reach far beyond outward appearance… A man cannot ever be a man in the truest sense unless he, in his mind, attests to these basic realities… Masculinity then is a matter of the mind.” (Pg. 160-161)
Paul T. Plew asks Christians,” “Do you love Him [Jesus] more than family, position, status, career, or entertainment? Do you love Him enough to go to bed early Saturday night so you are not tired on Sunday morning? Enough to get out of bed early enough to eat breakfast so you aren’t distracted by hunger? Enough to arrive at the church with plenty of time before the service starts?” (Pg. 197) He continues, “A host of churches today have a low view of worship music… The emphasis seems to be this: Make it easy for the congregation. Do not expect much from them. Treat them like an audience. Perform for their applause. Get the people excited for the moment.” (Pg. 200)
John D. Street suggests, “Christians continue to be taught the essentials of psychology overtly or inadvertently, in sermons, Sunday school lessons, marriage seminars, self-help books, radio programs, missionary training, and Christian universities. The principles of psychology are presented as though they were on the same authoritative level as Scripture and compete for its jurisdiction as the sole authority in determining the well-being of the soul… Many Christian colleges, universities, and seminaries have taken their psychology programs and relabeled them ‘Biblical Counseling Programs,’ while maintaining an essentially psychological core of subjects… Christians have good reason to be skeptical toward any type of counseling that is not thoroughly biblical.” (Pg. 205) Later, he adds, “Scripture contains no hint that man struggles with a ‘poor view of self’ or ‘low self-esteem.’ Yet this idea has been the rubric of a considerable amount of Christian pop psychology.” (Pg. 213)
Clyde P. Greer, Jr. asserts, “Postmodernists have sometimes gained power over certain segments of the American academy. In this setting, their infringements on the free speech of conservatives and traditional scholars who oppose postmodernist versions of ‘political correctness’ serve as a chilling warning of what might happen if they gained total power. Oppression (of old, white, male power holders) in the name of anti-oppression … cannot advance any sane conception of justice.” (Pg. 271)
John P. Stead states, “Those in opposition see the evangelical church as reactionary, seeking to maintain supposedly repressive moral standards and defending free enterprise, which allegedly exploits the poor and underrepresented groups such as minorities, women, and homosexuals… interest groups or factions can better achieve their agenda at the expanse of the vast unorganized majority.” (Pg. 282)
Grant Horner notes, “Consider the current craze among evangelicals for ‘Christian’ fiction and movies… many Christians are getting a large dose of their theology (especially eschatology) from such sources, rather than going directly to Scripture. There is potentially a very great danger in this trend…” (Pg. 318)
Certainly, a lot of Christians may disagree with this book’s dogmatic presentation of “THE” Christian Worldview (e.g., “old-earth’ creationists, Christian counselors, social justice advocates), and suggest that there are many other ‘biblical’ perspectives. But this is certainly an articulate and comprehensive presentation of this particular interpretation of Christianity.