Obama Was Right

After the 2020 election, CBS News interviewed former President Obama on the results of the election.

CBS: “Seventy-two million people voted for Donald Trump. What does that say to you about the state of this country?”

Obama: “Well, what it says is that we are still deeply divided. The power of that alternative worldview that’s presented in the media that those voters consume–it carries a lot of weight.”

CBS: “Are you worried about that?”

Obama: “Yes. It’s very hard for our democracy to function if we are operating on just completely different sets of facts.”[1]

In these two answers, Obama captures something that many evangelicals seem to miss. The issues dividing America, in the government, church, and home, arise from something far more serious than a difference of opinion. People are not merely disagreeing over the interpretation of reality; they are disagreeing over what reality really is.

Francis Schaeffer recognized this trend nearly four decades ago:

A central reason Christians do not understand their children is because their children no longer think in the same framework in which their parents think. It is not merely that they come out with different answers. The methodology has changed—that is, the very method by which they arrive at, or try to arrive at, truth has changed.[2]

The issue is not only “that they come out with different answers,” but how they approach truth in the first place.

What Schaeffer calls “framework,” Obama calls “worldview,” and if Christians are to survive the societal meltdown we are currently experiencing, they need to understand what it is and what Scripture says about it.

What Is a Worldview?

James N. Anderson says, “Your worldview represents your most fundamental beliefs and assumptions about the universe you inhabit.”[3] We all have assumptions about reality, whether we’ve chosen them deliberately or not. This is part of the reason why worldviews can be ignored so easily. 

“The issue is not only ‘that they come out with different answers,’ but how they approach truth in the first place.”

Explaining a worldview is challenging because it involves defining the self-evident. As an illustration, I can easily tell you which direction is left, but it takes far more care to tell you why that direction is left. It just is! It’s self-evident!

Now this is a trivial example, but it illustrates the type of “self-evident” presuppositions that lie behind all our choices and beliefs, even if we don’t acknowledge them. Anderson explains further,

A worldview is as indispensable for thinking as an atmosphere is for breathing. You can’t think in an intellectual vacuum any more than you can breathe without a physical atmosphere. Most of the time you take the atmosphere around you for granted: you look through it rather than at it, even though you know it’s always there. Much the same goes for your worldview: normally you look through it rather than directly at it. It’s essential, but it usually sits in the background.[4]

Our worldviews contain assumptions and presuppositions so basic and self-evident that we don’t even realize them. We all grow up with untested presuppositions about reality, truth, and morality. As I said before, our disagreements are not merely on the interpretation of reality, but on what reality really is. You’ve likely realized this in disagreements with your family, friends, and coworkers. At some point the disagreement comes to a halt because they reject something that you believe to be self-evident, or vice versa.

If you haven’t experienced this, simply go into a public place (virtual or physical) and ask “What is gender?” Or “Is human life valuable?” Or “Is homosexuality morally bad?” You’ll soon see that people have all sorts of assumptions and presuppositions that they can’t fully articulate, but they believe nonetheless. 

Take the transgender question as an example. Have those who support transgenderism seriously pondered the soul-body divide? Do they realize that they support some kind of dualism? Obviously they believe in some type of non-physical personhood, because they give it precedence over the physical body. In fact, the physical body very quickly becomes a secondary instrument to be used by the soul. The person’s real identity is psychological and separate from the body. But is a human simply a “ghost in a machine?”[5] Or are we both body and soul? What we have at the bottom of the transgender movement is a presupposition about what humans are. 

As I noted earlier, everyone has these types of presuppositions, but virtually no one forms them intentionally. The goal for Christians is not to rid ourselves of presuppositions (as if that were possible!). Rather, we must seek to understand our current presuppositions and daily conform them to Scripture. We must seriously consider what presuppositions make a biblically faithful worldview.

What Is a Christian Worldview? 

A truly biblical worldview begins and ends with the fear of the Lord. As Proverbs 1:7 tells us, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” Sadly, many Christians believe that reverence for God comes after the application of our independent “knowledge.” They think God’s revelation is tested and approved by their own, autonomous judgement. However, this is the exact logic that Eve employed in the Garden.

Rather than obeying God’s command, Eve believed that she had the right to evaluate God’s command and to determine for herself whether or not it was true (Gen. 3:6). One author writes, 

She assumed that she, a creature, had the criteria to judge the word of the Creator, between God’s word and Satan’s word. By reasoning in this way she was already implicitly guilty of denying the authority of the word of God. (Any reasoning that places the Word of God under the criteria of man’s own thinking will lead to an implicit denial, and ultimately rejection, of the authority of the Word of God).[6]

Pure authority, the kind that only God has, is obeyed, not evaluated for authenticity. This is why a biblical worldview must presuppose God’s authority. The Christian does not presuppose the soundness of his own reasoning and then work toward the authority of God. If this were the case, God’s authority would be subject to man’s reasoning! As an old apologist would say, this puts God on trial and makes man the judge. 

Instead, we begin with the “fear of the Lord.” We begin with the pure authority of God. We begin with Christ as lord of all who declared “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matt 28:18). As Bahnsen says,

Christ must be the ultimate authority over our philosophy, our reasoning, and our argumentation–not just at the end, but at the beginning, of our [Christian] endeavor. If we are to “cast down reasonings and every high thing exalted against the knowledge of God,” said Paul, then we must “bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). An ultimate commitment to Christ covers the entire range of human activity, including every aspect of intellectual endeavor. To reason in a way that does not recognize this is to transgress the first and great commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God with…all your mind” (Matt. 22:37).[7]

God has clearly revealed Himself in His Creation (Rom 1:19–20), His Word (Heb 1:1), and His Son (Heb 1:2; John 1:18). So Christians are not only disobedient, but also foolish to begin with any other presupposition than 1) the existence of the one true God and 2) the authority of His Word. These beliefs are the foundation that guide every thought that comes after. They are the bedrock of a Christian worldview.

Worldviews in the World

If the Christian begins all his reasoning with the presupposition of God’s authority, you can see why he will be in constant disagreement with someone who rejects God’s authority. For the Christian, God’s authority is the foundation of reality. For the unbeliever, his own sinful reasoning is the arbiter of reality. As Schaeffer said, “It is not merely that they think different things. They think differently.”[8] Not only are the destinations different, but the way we get there.

This is why so many of our disagreements go nowhere. This is why you can explain something that seems self-evident only to be met with blank stares and misunderstandings. The disagreement goes far deeper than the individual issue you are arguing over. It goes all the way down to what you believe reality really is.

When it comes to something like transgenderism, you may think you are arguing over the connection between anatomy and gender, but you are actually arguing over the lordship of Christ.[9] Again Bahnsen says, “Unfortunately, many evangelical Christians generally think in a piecemeal fashion, focusing on stray individual doctrines and facts rather than full-scale, coordinated belief systems.”[10] If we are to navigate the godless culture in which we live, we must learn to think and communicate in terms of ultimate commitments, not just specific conclusions.

When you enter into disagreements with unbelievers, keep two things in mind. First, don’t shy away from your own presuppositions. As Peter wrote, “in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15 NIV). Just as “fear of the Lord” comes before “knowledge” in Proverbs 1:7, now “revere Christ as Lord” comes before “give an answer.” Our answers and arguments begin with the lordship of Christ.

Second, try to expose the untested presuppositions of the unbeliever. Do this, of course, with “gentleness and respect,” as Peter goes on to write (1 Peter 3:15). But make an effort to understand and dismantle the worldview of the unbeliever (2 Cor. 10:5).

As an example, a person’s view on homosexuality can quickly expose their presuppositions. When someone supports homosexuality, you can ask them something like, “Why is homosexuality a good thing?” How they answer that type of question will immediately begin to reveal their unspoken, “self-evident” assumptions. From there, you can begin to show them a better way of understanding reality. A way which begins with the lordship of Christ.

Conclusion

As Obama noted earlier, our nation is not divided by tangential disagreements but by antithetical worldviews. And until Christians recognize this, they will be ill-equipped to meet the issues coming at them from our culture. They will be constantly bickering on the tenth floor of a worldview not realizing that the disagreement begins in the foundation.

I’ll leave you with this encouraging summary by John Frame on 1 Peter 3:15:

Peter tells us…that the lordship of Jesus (and hence the truth of his Word, for how can we call him “Lord” and not do what he says [Luke 6:46]?) is our ultimate presupposition. An ultimate presupposition is a basic heart-commitment, an ultimate trust. We trust Jesus Christ as a matter of eternal life or death. We trust his wisdom beyond all other wisdom. We trust his promises above all others. He calls us to give him all our loyalty and not allow any other loyalty to compete with him (Deut. 6:4ff; Matt. 6:24; 12:30; John 14:6; Acts 4:12). We obey his law, even when it conflicts with lesser laws (Acts 5:29). Since we believe him more certainly than we believe anything else, he (and hence his Word) is the very criterion, the ultimate standard of truth. What higher standard could there possibly be? What standard is more authoritative? What standard is more clearly known to us (see Rom. 1:19–21)? What authority ultimately validates all other authorities?[11]

---

Suggested Resources:

 1. Video: James Anderson, “What’s Your Worldview?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I52mZTcYThA&t=10s

2. Video: Greg Bahnsen, “The Myth of Neutrality”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW__rlhZSXY
(I would highly recommend this video for anyone in college or about to enter college.)

3. Blog: “God’s Problem Is a Lack of Evidence” by Cameron Buettel
https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B180319/gods-problem-is-a-lack-of-evidence

4. Book: Always Ready by Greg Bahnsen
https://www.gracebooks.com/always-ready.html

5. Book: Apologetics: A Justification for Christian Belief by John Frame
https://www.heritagebooks.org/products/apologetics-a-justification-of-christian-belief-frame.html

6. Book: The Scripture Cannot Be Broken: Twentieth Century Writings on the Doctrine of Inerrancy edited by John MacArthur
https://www.wtsbooks.com/products/the-scripture-cannot-be-broken-twentieth-century-writings-on-the-doctrine-of-inerrancy-john-macarthur-9781433548659?variant=9781733687343

References:

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jwSYVFiyFg&t=33s

[2] Francis Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer, 2nd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 1982), 1:233. Emphasis added.

[3] James N. Anderson, What Is Your Worldview? (Wheaton: Crossway, 2014), 12.

[4] Anderson, 13.

[5] For a thought provoking analysis of this problem for the transgender crowd, check out this article: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/12/gnostic-liberalism

[6] Kevin D. Zuber, The Essential Scriptures (Chicago: Moody, 2021), 217.

[7] Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1998), 2. Emphasis original. I’ve replaced the word “apologetic” with “Christian” here to avoid implying that this line of reasoning only applies to apologetics as a unique discipline.

[8] Schaeffer, 1:235. Emphasis added.

[9] Of course, we can and should use evidence that God has worked into creation in such arguments, but basis of those evidences is still the authority of God.

[10] Greg L. Bahnsen, Pushing the Antithesis (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2021), 43.

[11] John M. Frame, Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2015), 6.