Worldview change through InterVarsity Christian Fellowship at Purdue Calumet
..... elements of worldview need to be transformed and principles that promote ...
Changing the World by Changing Worldviews
Worldview change through InterVarsity Christian Fellowship at Purdue Calumet
By Luke Dalach
[email protected]
MB525 Worldview and Worldview Change Dr. Charles Kraft Winter 2009 Word Count: 4842
Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3 The Concept of Worldview ................................................................................................................ 4 Modern and Post-modern Worldview Themes at Purdue Calumet .................................................. 6 Changing Worldview .......................................................................................................................... 9 Worldview and Conversion ........................................................................................................... 9 Worldview and Discipleship ........................................................................................................ 12 Worldview Change Principles ...................................................................................................... 13 Felt needs on campus ...................................................................................................................... 14 Meaninglessness.......................................................................................................................... 15 Loneliness and isolation............................................................................................................... 16 Deepening love for the poor ....................................................................................................... 17 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................... 19
2|Page
Introduction The vision of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA is to see “students and faculty transformed, campuses renewed and world-changers developed.” InterVarsity seeks to transform students and see them changed at a deep level so that their mind and actions become more like Jesus. A central image InterVarsity uses is the metaphor of the university as a pond. InterVarsity wants to “change the whole pond” not to “take fish from the pond.” As campuses are renewed, InterVarsity students will become world-changers and make an impact on the world wherever they go after graduation. An understanding of the deep-level life assumptions of students are absolutely necessary for a ministry whose vision is about transformation and change. Purdue University Calumet is a commuter university of over nine-thousand students located in Hammond, IN, a suburb of Chicago. Located on the edge of the urban/suburban divide, it is a moderately diverse school ethnically with 16% African-American students, 13% Hispanic students, 66% White-non-Hispanic students and 3% students of other ethnicities (PUC 1998). There are newly constructed apartments on campus, but they only house 4% of the student-body. Of the remaining 96% of the students, the vast majority live at home with their families, saving them over $7,000 a year on room and board costs. Most students work part- or full-time. The average age of a student a Purdue Calumet is twenty-nine (Dalach 2000). Students at Purdue Calumet are not highly academic. They are pragmatic, evidenced in their choosing of their school on financial grounds. Many are first generation college students from working-class families. Many students are non-traditional, older students. Younger students often are highly connected to their group of high school friends and do not have the sudden “away from home” immersion in the “real world” that residential university students often have. Sometimes this means that they are more socially immature and less academically motivated. 3|Page
This paper will draw on my personal experience at Purdue University Calumet from 19941995 when I was a student at Purdue Calumet and in the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship chapter, from 1996-1999 when I was a volunteer with InterVarsity at Purdue Calumet, and from 2000-2006 when I was a campus staff member on the campus. The thesis is that a practical understanding of both the worldview of modern/post-modern students and the process of worldview change would result in more effective ministry by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship at Purdue University Calumet. In this paper, I will first provide a foundation by defining worldview. Then I will discuss key worldview themes common to students at Purdue Calumet. Next, I will discuss the nature of conversion and discipleship from a worldview perspective and principles for worldview change. Lastly, I will identify “felt needs” that exist in students’ modern and post-modern worldview that might lead to worldview change on campus. Throughout the discussion, I will make specific suggestions for the InterVarsity chapter which would increase the chapter’s effectiveness in advocating Jesus as primary life allegiance and in promoting biblical worldview perspectives.
The Concept of Worldview An understanding of worldview is essential for an effective ministry at Purdue Calumet. Worldview is a difficult concept. Although they center on the concept of “assumptions,” different authors define worldview in slightly different ways. Charles Kraft says that worldview is “the totality of the culturally structured images and assumptions (including value and commitment or allegiance assumptions) in terms of which a people both perceive and respond to reality” (Kraft 2008:12 emphasis added). Hiebert defines worldview as, “the foundational cognitive, affective and evaluative assumptions and frameworks a group of people makes about the nature of reality which they use to order their lives” (Hiebert 2008:25-26 emphasis added).
4|Page
Cultures have surface and deep levels. On the surface level are habitual, structured behaviors that are usually visible. On this level are the words, actions and observable patterns of life (Kraft 2008:43). The way hat students use cars to get to school is on this surface level of the culture of the campus. The way they structure their day and their schedule of class, eating, socializing and studying are surface-level patterns of culture. The deep level of a culture is the culture’s worldview. This is the “soul” of a culture (Benedict 1961). It is more than a culture’s theology or philosophy because there are assumptions informing the process of theologizing or philosophizing. “The term worldview…relates to ways of perceiving reality and in doing so provides a deeper level of assumption than philosophy or theology” (Burnett 1992:14). These assumptions relate to how a society assigns meaning to, interprets, evaluates, reasons, and commits/pledges allegiance to the reality in which it exists (Kraft 2008:43). All these assumptions are beneath the surface and are mostly subconscious. That is, the people of the society do not realize the assumptions exist. Kraft also compares worldview and culture to a “script” by which people of a society live their lives. He says, “…culture (including worldview) is like the script an actor uses to prepare for a performance. The actor memorizes the script very much like we memorize our cultural patters as children. The major differences lie in the fact that culture is much more complex than any script and that the actor is much more conscious of the memorizing process than we are as children as we learn the script (Kraft 2008:35)” Kraft points out that actors often change their given script when they act in a performance. As actors ultimately have the choice of whether to carry out the script or not, so individuals in a culture ultimately have the choice to follow the worldview of their culture. Of course worldview assumptions affect the whole way students at Purdue Calumet live their lives. The fact that most students drive to school alone in their car is linked to the worldview theme of individualism and a subtheme of a commitment to individual freedom. A student wants to
5|Page
be able to come and go to the campus when they want to and not be reliant on anyone else. The majority of students could choose other ways or traveling to campus, but the assumptions of individualism and the resulting value for total freedom are the “script,” so to say, that students follow in driving alone to Purdue Calumet. A worldview can be internally divided into several sub-divisions. First, themes are “the highest level” within a worldview. “The assumptions organized into each theme interact with and limit those in other themes to provide the overall structuring of the worldview” (Kraft 2008:16-17). Within a theme is a sub-theme, and sub-themes may be further divided into paradigms and so on down. While a worldview is much more complex than an analysis of its themes and subthemes, important understanding can be gained by understanding a society’s worldview themes and subthemes.
Modern and Post-modern Worldview Themes at Purdue Calumet Kraft believes that modern and post-modern worldviews are both present in American culture because society-wide worldview change is a very slow process (Kraft 2009). Hiebert agrees when he says, “Modern and postmodern worldviews have coexisted in the West for the past several decades and are competing for general acceptance” (Hiebert 2008:212). In order to effectively transform students at Purdue Calumet and the campus itself, we must understanding the key worldview themes and subthemes that influence them. Student at Purdue Calumet have both a modern and a post—modern worldview, but because of the pragmatic, working class environment, the modern worldview is still more prevalent. The first worldview theme common to students at Purdue Calumet is the modern assumption of dualism from Aristotelian Greek philosophy. This worldview theme is the reigning theme of any modern public university including Purdue University Calumet. The modern education 6|Page
system is “the most legitimating agency of modernity” and is the “monastery of modernity” (Hiebert 2008:194; Kraft 2009). While dualism is strong in the system of education, students at Purdue Calumet do not have as strong a modern dualist worldview. This seems partly connected a postmodern worldview and partly to an apathetic “don’t care” attitude of a pragmatic people who do not have extra “luxuries of time” to sit and reflect (Hiebert 2008:239). Dualism is the categorization of life into two spheres, natural and supernatural (Hiebert 2008). It is a modern assumption that only things which can be scientifically and empirically verified are truly real and important. Kraft identifies this assumption in a worldview theme of “secular humanism” which is that “humans beings are to work out our own lives without divine assistance” (Kraft 2008:267). Cluckhorn states that a “relatively strong trust in science and education and relative indifference to religion” is one of the “outstanding features that define the American scene” (Kluckhohn 1949:239). Newbigin traces this worldview assumption in Western to the Enlightenment with the replacement of one framework, which showed God’s hand and purpose in the world, with another framework, which showed the world as “one not governed by purpose but by natural laws of cause and effect” (Newbigin 1986:24). This in time led to the worship of scientific “facts,” and the relegation of all opinions, values and beliefs to a private, personal “opinion” category. A second worldview theme of modernity that pertains to students at Purdue Calumet is a mechanistic view of the world, with its resulting individualism. All societies have a view of the world that helps them interpret the universe and answer questions such as What is the universe made of and How should it work? Some see the world as personalistic, as an interconnected organism full of personal living beings such as humans, animals, good and evil spirits, ancestors, and gods. Some, like modern, Western society, see it as mechanistic and expect the universe “to
7|Page
operate according to machine ‘principles’” (Kraft 2008:235). In modern culture, all things are reduced to their parts to be studied. Human beings also become parts in a machine to be studied and analyzed. Viewed as machines, humans only need to function well physically in order to produced the right output. Relationship between people becomes “problematic” because people are reduced to impersonal, machine-like, autonomous entities. But if human beings are only parts in a machine, they only have a functional relationship to other parts in the machine. Each human is completely autonomous and free there is little ground for meaningful relationships outside of functionality. Social groups are “made up of autonomous individuals linked together by contract,” but, “the social glue that holds clubs together is weak because group loyalties are based on personal interest. There is always the threat that relationships between members will founder because of arguments or loss of interest” (Hiebert 2008:171). Students at Purdue Calumet struggle to find their place in the relationships of life and their desire for authentic relationship is an overriding purpose in their life. Hiebert does not discuss any change in worldview from modernity to postmodernity related to this worldview theme of humans and relationships. In one sense, students are more relationally driven than students a generation ago. On the surface it seems that there is a change in worldview. On the other hand, the extreme freedom to move in and out of social groups and even personal and gender identity is a mark of modernity being lived out to its logical conclusion in postmodernity. A third worldview theme important to understanding students is the theme of consumerism. Kraft calls this theme “materialism” and defines it as the worldview theme that “money and material wealth are the measures of human success and value” (Kraft 2008:272) Hiebert believes that this is a key feature of a postmodern worldview (Hiebert 2008:230). This
8|Page
theme is both different from and connected to a mechanistic worldview. In a mechanistic world, success is about finding the right techniques to support the machine. But “technique turns everything into goods that can be produced and sold. The result is the commodification of public life – everything is valued in terms of its economic benefit” (Hiebert 2008:164).” This impacts students’ view of their college career and their whole view of work. Students are reduced to marketability and the only way to increase marketability is to go to college. Also, for most students, a college degree is a way to continue allegiance to buying goods and consuming. Work is reduced to making money in order to participate in the pursuit of happiness and the greatest goal in life becomes the accumulation of material, consumer goods.
Changing Worldview Worldview is the deep-level assumptions that people subconsciously hold about all of life. At Purdue Calumet, three key worldview themes are evident: dualism, a mechanistic view of the universe, and materialism/consumerism. InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, as bringer of the Good News of the Kingdom, seeks be a part of transforming students and the campus. This means that the ministries of InterVarsity will need to help students transform their deeply-held worldviews. But the task of transformation might seem impossible without understanding conversion, what elements of worldview need to be transformed and principles that promote worldviews change. Worldview and Conversion
Conversion to Christianity is paradigm shift in allegiance to the person of Jesus the Messiah at a worldview level. It is not just about believing a set of doctrines or acting in a certain way. In order to understand conversion, Hiebert refers back to two different assumptions about how people create categories (Hiebert 2008:308). Every worldview has assumptions that help the society interpret the world, give definition and classify reality. Kraft names “categorization/ classification/ 9|Page
logic” as one of the six worldview universals, “categories of assumptions to be found in every worldview”(Kraft 2008:167). Two of these categorizing assumptions help in an understanding of conversion. First, categorizing reflects either digital or analogical sets. A set is “a number of things of the same kind that belong or are used together1.” If a people build mental categories that are “well-formed” or “digital,” based on propositional logic, they are built on digital sets. In these “bounded sets,” “members cannot belong to two categories at the same time” (Hiebert 2008:33). This reflects black and white categorizing. Analogical or “fuzzy” sets, on the other hand, are built on a kind of logic that has “an infinite number of steps between in and out and between one set and another” (Hiebert 2008:33). Categorized items are not primarily in or out of a set, as in a digital set, but are viewed by degrees of difference between sets. While digital sets have no shades of gray, analogical sets have a blurring of the lines between sets. Applying this to the category of “students,” digital set assumptions would lead to the description a person as either a student or not. Analogical set assumptions would lead to many more steps, level or shades between the sets of “student” and “nonstudent” – a person who is thinking about college, in the application process, enrolled for classes, a freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior, just graduated or other steps in between. Second, categorizing assumptions reflect either intrinsic or relational sets. This category answers the question “why are members assigned to this set and not another” (Hiebert 2008:34)? Intrinsic sets are created based on the intrinsic characteristics of the object being categorized. Relational sets are created based on what or who the object being categorized is related to. For example, the very concept of “student” is an intrinsic set categorization since it categorizes a person by an internal, intrinsic quality. A student is one who studies and others who don’t study cannot be 1
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
10 | P a g e
grouped together into the “student” set. A relational set categorization might group a person by the teacher from whom a student learns. This is very much like the concept of disciple and rabbi found in the New Testament. The person was known not primarily by the fact that they were studiers, but by the reputation of and relationship to the teacher. Hiebert shows that conversion or allegiance change should be understood with fuzzy, relational set categorization2 (Hiebert 2008:311). This means that conversion on campus is fundamentally about helping people re-assign their primary allegiance to the person of Jesus. Or to use biblical terms, conversion is repentance of a person’s primary allegiance, a turning away from sin and turning to relationship with God. The early Church creed’s and test for authentic faith was simply whether one could publically proclaim “Jesus is Lord3” (Kraft 2008:402). In today’s world of digital, intrinsic set theology, this sounds theologically dangerous! But it does seem to support a relational, fuzzy set understanding of conversion. Understanding conversion with fuzzy, relational set logic means that there are varying shades and levels in understanding the person of Jesus. In campus ministry, this means that students who simply claim that they center their lives on Jesus are Christians and that energy spent trying to determine who is and who is not a Christians is wasted energy. This is especially insightful on a campus with many nominal Christians. It also means that ministry is mainly about the person of Jesus and helping people understand Jesus not just intellectually, but experientially through the body of Christ, the followers of Jesus on campus.
Here Hiebert is fairly unclear. He states that “a fuzzy, intrinsic-set approach” does raise “theological questions” and then he states that some of those questions disappear using a Hebraic relational set logic (Hiebert 2008:311). It seems that the “fuzzy set” relates to the amount of understanding a person has of Jesus. A digital set and seeing two clear categories – “a person who knows all about Jesus,” and “a person who knows nothing about Jesus” – is not helpful because no one ever knows everything about Jesus. Knowing all there is about something might be possible about an object, but is impossible in knowing a person. 3 Rom. 10:9, 1 Cor. 12:3. 2
11 | P a g e
Worldview and Discipleship
A change of primary allegiance at the worldview level is really just the turning point and the start of a journey toward a transformed worldview. Hiebert and Burnett claim that there is such a thing as a “biblical worldview” that should be pursued (Burnett 1992:211; Hiebert 2008:265). Kraft believes that there is not just one “biblical worldview,” but that there are biblical perspectives that should be inserted in a society’s worldview assumptions (Kraft 2008:27-28). He believes this because worldviews contain assumption categories to which the scriptures give no clear guidance. For example, there are not “biblical” assumptions for how one should view time, space and categorizing4. These assumptions change by culture. “There are…specifically Christian perspectives intended to be introduced into the worldview of every people” (Kraft 2008:27). Christian perspectives are to be inserted into the worldview of students at the deepworldview level. This follows Jesus pattern of teaching radical principles which would produce change from within (Kraft 2008:469). There are many examples in the bible of introducing deeplevel worldview change such as Jesus’ teaching on neighborliness and God as a good Father. These are both deep-level worldview assumption shifts that would have had radical implications on the surface-level. Jesus’ model was to change people from the inside out and his followers should follow in his ways. The trouble is that this “yeast-like” approach is slow and messy. The history of Israel records this messiness in Yahweh’s attempts at changing the people’s worldview from polytheism and animism to monotheism. But seeking to change people’s surface level and not their deep level worldview results in syncretism (Burnett 1992:131).
Although, it seems that I just argued for Hiebert’s relational, fuzzy sets from biblical assumptions related to categorizing. Whether or not there is a biblical worldview, it will be more helpful to see worldview change as the introduction of “biblical perspectives” since this will better follow a bottom-up, inside-out approach to change. 4
12 | P a g e
It is in the introduction of these perspectives that define Christian discipleship and InterVarsity’s ministry of discipleship at Purdue Calumet. On campus, this would mean spending more time persuading students to new adopt principles rather than trying to correct specific behaviors. The role of the staff person and InterVaristy student leader is to “advocate change, witness to alternative assumptions, values and allegiances, and commend their acceptance.” They “should not expect to control the natural process of the spread and implementation of a change…” (Kraft 2008:465). Worldview Change Principles
Worldview assumptions can be changed. A missionary anthropologist perspective of this process may illuminate discipleship and worldview change in a Western context like Purdue Calumet. From Kraft and Hiebert, there are several overall principles that help the process of worldview change for both conversion and Christian growth. The first principle is that people must be able to see that an alternative worldview is possible (Kraft 2008:351; Hiebert 2008:321). Christian witnesses must live out an alternative worldview in public. Not only must they live out their worldview in public, but they must verbally interpret their deeds for their receptors. Onlookers can reinterpret a witness’ actions within their own worldview assumptions, giving the actions new meaning other than the Christian one (Myers 1999:210). An explanation of the witness’ worldview is essential in awakening a receptor to the possibility of another worldview. A second principle for worldview change is that change comes from “surfacing” a receptor’s worldview assumptions (Hiebert 2008:319). Christians must to be able to interpret not only their own actions and worldview assumptions, but also other peoples’ worldviews. Often in “surfacing” worldview assumptions, gaps are found that connect to felt needs.
13 | P a g e
Third, worldview change can be initiated by identifying felt needs a person/society has and showing how allegiance to Jesus can meet those needs. No worldview completely accounts for all of reality and there are often gaps in worldview that cause frustration. For example, people’s ideals for who they would like to be is usually different than who they actually are. This gap represents a felt need that the power of Jesus could fill. “A feeling of need (conscious or unconscious) is, then, a powerful motivator in opening people’s wills to the possibility of change” (Kraft 2008:350). Felts needs might be caused by worldview assumptions that are not working and therefore cause dissatisfaction, or by worldview assumptions that ultimately helpful, but not attainable. This principle of meeting felt needs must include an ongoing listening to people’s needs and readiness to serve in whatever ways they mention. This means being ready to serve people by meeting physical, relational and spiritual needs “Usually, witnesses will not be give permission by receptors to focus on deep-level needs, especially those of which the receptors are not very conscious, unless the witnesses first address themselves to need needs that the people feel at a conscious level” (Kraft 2008:383). If we believe that Jesus really does bring full life to all people everywhere and that Jesus is about the “restoration of all things5,” then we can serve people by bridging from felt needs in people to personal commitment to “Jesus as Lord.”
Felt needs on campus Jesus is Lord over all of life and students at Purdue Calumet should have an effective witness of an alternative worldview centered on relationship with God through Jesus the Messiah. Worldview is the deep-level assumptions through which people grid their reality. Students at Purdue Calumet have modern and postmodern worldviews that contain some assumptions about the world that are for life, some that are neutral and some that bring death. Their worldviews also 5
Acts 3:21.
14 | P a g e
contain a variety of different primary life allegiances. Change in their worldviews will only come about as Christian students live out a life of witness and introduce the Lord of life by bridging from student’s felt needs. Meaninglessness
The first felt need is a need for meaning and purpose. Students’ meaninglessness is rooted in the modern worldview theme of dualism. The natural/supernatural split in Western culture has led to a worldview that has place for purpose and meaning. Enlightenment thinkers believed that “to have discovered the cause of something is to have explained it. There is no need to invoke purpose or design as an explanation” (Newbigin 1986:24). The worldview of modernity does not offer answers to the questions of meaning and students feel a gap. Witnesses of Jesus can advocate worldview change centered in Jesus by offering a life full of meaning as children of God. But witnesses must not succumb themselves to dualism and a personal, private, values-only faith. True faith in Jesus pronounces life into all of human existence – social, political, economic, relational, and spiritual. Christian witnesses and the InterVarsity chapter must be radically involved in advocating change in every area of life on campus. Worldview is holistic and affects all of a person’s life. No one worldview theme can stand alone, unaffected by the others. To effectively connect this felt need for meaning to the gospel, Christian witnesses must “surface” the source of this need – the fallacy of the “split”” in human life. The modern worldview assumption is so prevalent and strong that almost no students at Purdue Calumet are aware of its presence. The separating of private-values from public-facts is in itself a “folk-science” which is “denied by the actual practice of science. At the frontier of research, scientists do have to make difficult decisions whether or not to commit themselves to a new line of enquiry…the scientist is
15 | P a g e
sustained in his intense mental struggle by a passionate concern to solve the problem he has decided to tackle. His enterprise is not value-free” (Newbigin 1986:77 emphasis added). In order to do this, students in InterVarsity at Purdue Calumet would need to interpret their own and other’s worldview. Burnett provides a summary of Luzbetak’s “clues” for identifying worldview themes (Burnett 1992:27-29). These ten questions could provide a starting place for training Christian students to identify worldview themes of students on campus so they could discuss and “surface” them. Students in InterVarsity would also need to be trained to think about life holistically, knowing how to think about politics, economics, social welfare and all areas of life with biblical perspectives. This would offer students on campus an example of a non-dualistic worldview. Loneliness and isolation
Individualism and a mechanistic view of life result in another gap in the modern worldview of students. They have a felt need for authentic, deep community and lasting relationships. Because students act on the worldview assumptions of freedom and complete autonomy, there is no framework for lasting relationships, sometimes even in their families. The InterVarsity chapter, as difficult as it is on a commuter campus, must continually work on creating others-focused community as a witness of God’s covenantal love for all people. Hirsch calls this mission-oriented community communitas (Hirsch 2006). The central value in a communitas is the worldview assumption change from “the community for me” to “me for the community”. Only when an InterVarsity chapter lives for the sake of a mission greater than itself can real relationships develop. And only when the chapter is able to witness to this kind of communitas, will it be able to offer an alternative worldview to the campus of Purdue Calumet.
16 | P a g e
Deepening love for the poor
Alongside the students’ worldview assumption of consumerism/materialism is a strong commitment to impacting the world for good and specifically to serving the poor. This is a felt need for impact in a world of commodification and inequality. But the two worldview assumptions of materialism and love for the poor are in tension with each other. Students have a desire to “end poverty” out of “rich guilt” rather than from a worldview that values all people made in the image of God. This is an opportunity for the InterVarsity chapter to come alongside what is good in student’s worldview – love for the poor and a desire make a difference– and offer a deeper reason for equality and a repudiation of materialism. This would mean that the chapter would join with others engaged in service and advocacy and also interpret verbally the reason that they love and serve others.
Conclusion An understanding of worldview and worldview change would increase the effectiveness of InterVarsity’s witness at Purdue Calumet in many ways. It would give the chapter tools to analyze their own worldview and the worldview of students on campus. Since students in InterVarsity also have some of the same needs for worldview change as nonChristians, InterVarsity students would grow in strength and maturity. InterVarsity students and staff would gain a better understanding of conversion, discipleship and the need for “seed-planting” at the worldview level. Students could be transformed by meeting felt needs and introducing them to a relational allegiance to Jesus. As students on campus changed, the campus culture would change and InterVarsity’s vision of a “renewed campus” would be realized. Fifty years ago, Kluckhohn, in his anthropological analysis of American culture observed, “A mechanistic, materialistic ‘science’ hardly provides the orientations to the deeper
17 | P a g e
problems of life that are essential for happy individuals and a healthy social order. Nor does a political philosophy such as "democracy." Men need tenets that do not outrage the brain but are meaningful to the viscera and the aesthetic sensibilities. They must be symbolized in rites that gratify the heart, please the ear and eye, fulfill the hunger for drama. Observers agree on the poverty of American ceremonial life. Mass economic upheaval following upon unprecedented economic growth; lack of attention to the human problems of an industrial civilization; the impersonality of the social organization of cities; the melting pot, transitory geographical residence, social mobility, weakening of religious faith—all of these trends have contributed to make Americans feel unanchored, adrift upon a meaningless voyage” (Kluckhohn 1949:250-251 emphasis added). These and many other signs point to the demoralization of American society. Extinction is a possible result of a demoralized society that does not have a revitalization movement come from within (Kraft 2008:435). Newbigin shows how biblical worldview perspectives were a foundation for the emergence of modern science in its early non-anti-supernatural form (Newbigin 1986). As the current worldview of the West crumbles, perhaps once again Christianity might provide the foundation for a new movement. It is to this end that InterVarsity hopes to transform students: it is in the universities that world-changing, and worldview changing, leaders are formed.
18 | P a g e
Bibliography Benedict, Ruth. 1961. Patterns of culture. Boston,: Houghton Mifflin. Burnett, David. 1992. Clash of Worldviews. Nashville: Oliver-Nelson Books. Dalach, Luke. 2000. Spying Out the Land. In IVCF New Staff Training, Interview Results and Report. Hammond, IN. Hiebert, Paul G. 2008. Transforming Worldviews : an anthropological understanding of how people change. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic. Hirsch, Alan. 2006. The Forgotten Ways : reactivating the missional church. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press. Kluckhohn, Clyde. 1949. Mirror for man; the relation of anthropology to modern life. New York,: Whittlesey House. Kraft, Charles H. 2008. Worldview for Christian Witness. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library. ———. 2009. Class Notes. In MB525 Worldview and Worldview Change. Pasadena, CA: Fuller Theological Seminary. Myers, Bryant L. 1999. Walking with the Poor : Principles and Practices of Transformational Development. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books. Newbigin, Lesslie. 1986. Foolishness to the Greeks : the Gospel and Western Culture. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. PUC. Purdue University-Calumet Campus Demographics 1998 [cited. Available from http://www.stateuniversity.com/universities/IN/Purdue_University_Calumet.html.
19 | P a g e
