Living in a world where the worst that happens is that I receive critical pushback on a blog post is one thing; living in a world where Christians cannot rent space in order to worship on a Sunday, where millions of abortions take place every year, and where every ethical value I hold dear is routinely mocked or ignored or characterised as ‘hate’ is quite another.  I know in which world I would rather live; thus, I look forward to the transformation of the latter into the former by my critics and truly wish them well in their endeavour.

The responses to my post on transformation have been fast and on occasion furious.  There is not time to deal with each and every one, so I respond in the form of a clarification and then a quasi-challenge.

First, a clarification: I have no problem with the term ‘worldview’.  I do have a problem with the term ‘Christian worldview’ because it is vague to the point of being philosophically useless even as it has proved rhetorically and politically useful.  For example, it is surely the case that if you believe the bread and wine actually become the real body and real blood of Christ at communion, that profoundly affects your view of the world.  If you believe God elects based on foreseen merits rather than by mere grace, that profoundly affects your view of the world.  If you believe that believers’ children are part of the visible church, that profoundly affects your view of the world.   If you believe that disco music is a little taste of heaven on earth, that will affect (possibly profoundly) your view of the world.  The list could go on but the point is clear: professing Christians disagree on all of these things and yet convictions on all of these things shape our view of the world.  In short, there is really no such thing as ‘the Christian worldview’ in the singular; there is rather a variety of Christian worldviews.  There may be a small core of beliefs that bind all Christians together; but that core is surely too small to provide anything approaching a comprehensive view of the world; and none of those few beliefs stand in ultimate isolation from the bigger doctrinal complex that is Christianity as we are taught it and believe it as individuals and as members of specific communions.

Second, the basic point in my post was, of course, not that Christianity has never made a difference to society.  Kuyper did make a difference (which I never denied) as did others — e.g., Thomas Chalmers, William Wilberforce, George Muller, Thomas Guthrie; but even acknowledging that, the lack of proportion between the rhetoric of some of today’s transformationalists compared to what they are actually achieving is really rather embarrassing.

The best way to prove me wrong, of course, is… to transform society.   I would indeed love to be not only proved wrong but to be proved so wrong that I am shamed into never writing another word of cultural commentary (and I am sure many readers will join me in saying ‘Amen!’ to that). Living in a world where the worst that happens is that I receive critical pushback on a blog post is one thing; living in a world where Christians cannot rent space in order to worship on a Sunday, where millions of abortions take place every year, and where every ethical value I hold dear is routinely mocked or ignored or characterised as ‘hate’ is quite another.  I know in which world I would rather live; thus, I look forward to the transformation of the latter into the former by my critics and truly wish them well in their endeavour.

Dr. Carl Trueman is Paul Woolley Professor of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary and pastor of Cornerstone Presbyterian Church in Ambler, PA. This article  first appeared at Reformation 21 and is used with permission.