Like our Civic's "undercarriage" there are different ways of viewing the world which act as a foundation for how we handle the roads of life. Our world-view defines how we look at the world, and therefore how we act and react to our world. World-views deal with the weighty issues of life, such as what is the meaning of life? What happens after we die? or Why is there evil in the world and how are we to deal with it? Ultimately, our world-view shapes our understanding of God, reality and truth.

Understanding the different ways that people look at the world helps to explain why, as Christians, we have such a diversity of beliefs--and why we have such heated debates about key issues in our Church. And there is more at stake than simply sorting out and understanding a smorgasbord of beliefs. It can be a matter of eternal life or death; the difference between worshipping the One true God or engaging in idolatry--the worship of false gods.

Although there are many ways to look at the world, three are notable for their scope and influence on our contemporary Church and society. The "modern" world-view, which was ushered in with the Enlightenment of the 18th century, has dominated Western culture for about three hundred years. It is now being displaced by "post-modernism" which has been prevalent for about the last twenty years. Both of these world-views compete with a third - "Biblical theism", which has been the mainstay of Christians for centuries.

The modern world view began with a profound eagerness to question everything in light of reason and conscience. Seeking to eliminate superstition, it holds that reason is the key to certain or absolute knowledge about the world. This world view holds that through reason and the power of scientific observation, human beings should be able to arrive at a universal understanding of morality and truth. With systematic thinking, a liberal education, and the proper application of science, it is optimistic that human beings can solve the world's problems.

When we recognize the assumptions of modernity, we are better able to understand how it has had a profound impact on the Christian church, and how its assumptions tend to undermine some traditional Christian beliefs.

For instance, because it tends to dismiss the supernatural, the modern view has questioned, and often dismissed, the deity of Jesus Christ, the resurrection of Jesus' body, the second coming of Christ, and his miracles. It views these ideas as products of wishful thinking of a prescientific people. Further, its optimism about the ability of human beings to find out what is right and true through reason alone, is at odds with the traditional Christian emphasis that human sinfulness blinds us to certain God given eternal truths.

This world view disallows any appeal to revelation and therefore weighs the Bible itself against the measure of reason and conscience. Its influence is seen in Biblical studies when scholars make distinctions between the "Jesus of history," and the "Christ of faith." The "Jesus of history" is considered to be the facts about Jesus as determined by what we can know through history and modern critical methods; while the "Christ of faith" is known as what people affirm about Christ having interpreted those facts.

As a direct consequence of the modern world-view, New Testament studies have embarked on a "Quest for the Historical Jesus." This "quest" sought to liberate Jesus from the gospel's supernatural presentation and bring the person of Jesus into the light of modern rational thinking. It is the intellectual forerunner of many popular liberal books about Jesus, and its approach to history is reflected in the assumptions of the popular, albeit controversial, Jesus Seminar.

It is easy to see why Christians disagree when we understand that one group denies or minimizes the reality of the supernatural, while the other tends to view it as the undercarriage for their faith. Yet modernity itself is rapidly being displaced by another, more radical, undercarriage.

Postmodernism points out that the claims of modernity are in themselves not completely objective. It notes that the process of selecting and analyzing what we observe is unavoidably filled with bias. As a result, postmodernists tend to reject any claim to a universal standard of truth, and, going further, tend to criticize all such claims as being inherently oppressive. For the postmodernist, truth is definitely not "one size fits all." Rather, truth is viewed as having been created or made up over time by a particular community; it is thought to be "constructed" as one might construct or write a story.

Postmodernists treat truth and morality in the same way we might treat pesos and Canadian dollars. What works in Mexico doesn't work in Canada; the value of the currency depends on the country you're in. Likewise, for the postmodernist, truth depends on the community you come from. What is true for you may not be true for us.

While in Nepal I was horrified to learn that there were mothers who would amputate the limbs of their children to ensure they became successful beggars. From a North American perspective, amputating healthy arms or legs is an abhorrent evil. However, from the perspective of a poor woman whose child was destined socially to beg for a living, amputating a limb was an act of compassion. If there are no absolutes, as the postmodernist claims, then social convention ends up determining ethics.

While the Modern view holds that human beings are capable of knowing universal or absolute truths through the power of reason and scientific observation, postmodernism asserts that there is simply no such thing as universal truth. There is no "US dollar" or "gold standard" against which to measure the relative value of various truth claims. Truth is what we make it and, as such, every interpretation is viewed as equally valid.

When compared with these world-views, Biblical theism finds some common ground, but differs dramatically on a few key assumptions. For instance, while Biblical theism agrees with the Modern contention that we are rational creatures and that there are absolute truths, it differs from the Modern view insofar as it holds that true and ultimate knowledge can not be fully known apart from revelation. In contradiction to the Modern view, Biblical theism presupposes the existence of the supernatural. For Biblical theists the statement "We believe God has revealed this to us and therefore this we hold as true" is a legitimate way to discover truth.

Biblical theism holds that by the power of the Holy Spirit believers are led into truth and gain an intimacy and depth of relationship with God, which cannot be discovered or known through any other means outside of God’s own initiative. This relationship develops through Jesus Christ and is revealed by the Holy Spirit. Biblical theism agrees with the postmodern conviction that everyone is prone to bias. At the same time it locates the most profound bias of all in our fallen or sinful condition. And, in contrast to the Postmodern view, it holds that there are absolute truths universal in their scope.

From a Biblical theist perspective, God is our Creator and because God chose to create, God must have a plan. With a plan there is purpose and with a purpose there lies responsibility and accountability. As Creator, God has an inherent authority, which has been revealed through scripture. God determines absolutes. Though we are unable to arrive at absolute certainty, still by faith we shall one day "fully understand" (1 Cor. 13:12). To affirm that one day "every knee shall bow ... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father" (Phil. 2:10,11) is to affirm, by means of faith, that God's claims through Jesus Christ are binding upon all of humanity. This has enormous implications for how we should live our lives and relate to others.

Of course there are Christians who hold, to a greater or lesser extent, each of these three world-views. So why, if we are all Christians, can't we agree? Sometimes it's because the undercarriage which supports our thinking is just TOO different. Consider the debates the United Church went through with respect to the ordination of homosexuals.

A Biblical theist might tend to place a heavy emphasis on what the Bible says about sexuality in general, and from that framework show how homosexuality is to be viewed in particular. Noting that the Bible never endorses homosexuality as a lifestyle, and that on a number of occasions views it in a negative light, this approach would probably conclude that the Church should discourage if not repudiate homosexual lifestyles. A >MODERN< approach would place a heavy emphasis on the scientific data about homosexuality. It might argue that explicit Biblical references to homosexuality are naive and unrealistic especially in light of modern research. Recognizing that the authors of the Bible were bound by the conventional wisdom of a prescientific era, the modern approach might take a positive view toward homosexuality in general.

Postmodernism would question the objectivity behind the "scientific studies" about homosexuality. It might ask questions such as which studies have been considered and by whom? What information has been ignored and why? At the same time it would condemn any conclusions which allowed one group to dictate to another what is right or wrong for them. From this point of view any recourse to a so-called "objective standard" inevitably invites oppression.

Understanding the different ways that people look at the world helps us to make sense of why we have so much trouble coming to a common understanding on important issues. Consider how the postmodernist way of looking at things has shaped the Church's response to inclusive language.

Postmodernism, in its extreme form, suggests that everything is a social construction made by human minds. With respect to inclusive language the logic runs something like this: the language that the early Church used when the New Testament was written reflected the cultural biases of the day. Written in a patriarchal society, the scriptures employ sexist language to describe God. Given our contemporary understanding and the belief that nonsexist language ought to be used as far as possible, traditional language used for the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, ought to be avoided.

In contrast the Biblical theist would begin with the premise that even the language of the scriptures is to some degree inspired by God, and the language Jesus used to describe God and his relationship to God is a part of that revelation. Thus by changing or avoiding the traditional formulation of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we change or avoid part of the very truths God has desired to reveal to the Church.

How the United Church has responded to the recent controversy over the public statements of our Moderator Rt. Rev. Bill Phipps also reflects a postmodern emphasis. His comments were defended not so much on the basis of how well they conform to a core understanding of Christian belief, or even based on reason, but rather on the strength of support he had in making them, their relative popularity, and that they were respectful of diversity.

Protests that his beliefs are not consistent with the traditional formulations of Christianity were countered by claims that Christian tradition has been diverse from the beginning, and that "some modern scholars believe... ." Without the acknowledgment of an objective standard by which to "settle the argument" the United Church is left with the difficult task of trying to build a consensus about what we believe.

Finally, understanding the postmodern way of looking at the world helps to explain the way we study issues as a Church. Whatever the issue, we tend to take part in a broad Church-wide consultation. Everyone has a voice. Our stance is not so much a declaration of "this is true" based on an appeal to Biblical norms, but rather it is a reflection of a collection of opinions on specific topics--some more or less Biblically informed. This approach has advantages and disadvantages.

At best, we as a Church are able to discern the voice of God speaking in and through us, and then take positions which reflect God's desire for us. At worst, we fail to properly weigh the relative merit and validity of the various responses against the canon of scripture and subsequently find ourselves taking positions which are at odds with the emphases of the scriptures themselves.

For instance, the impetus of the MENDING THE WORLD document is to shift the United Church's approach to ecumenism from being "church centred" to "world centred"; yet it has the effect of undermining the Church's witness to the redemptive work of Christ who reconciles humanity to God.

Even on the question of defining "Who is a Christian?" our world-view shapes our answer. Postmodernists, having no standard by which to judge what is true, might suggest that if people define themselves as a Christian, then they are Christians. The modernist, relying on what appears to be certainty based on reason, might reply that a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ who obeys his teachings. And the Biblical theist might turn to Romans 10:9 and reply: "if you confess with your mouth that 'Jesus is Lord' and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

To some extent each of us can be influenced by the assumptions of all three world-views. For example, it is entirely possible for a person to have many orthodox Christian beliefs, but to go no further than to say that they are true only for him or herself. Such a Christian is likely to prefer dialogue over evangelism, fearing that the latter implies arrogance and intolerance.

Although we may not find ourselves to be completely consistent in advocating any one world-view, it is nevertheless important for us to be conscious of what our "undercarriage" is. In this way we can be clearer in our theology and the living out of our faith. Speaking as one who prefers a Biblical theistic approach, I believe we should humbly recognize both our own bias toward sin, and the grace God gives us by the Holy Spirit. At the same time we should acknowledge the contributions which both modern postmodern thinking have made, while recognizing their shortcomings and how their assumptions effect their journey on the road of life.

Rev. David Fisher is minister to the Foam Lake - Leslie Pastoral Charge, Saskatchewan.