I characterize controlling pictures or assumptions and concomitants of first modemity and then postmodernity. In brief, these assumptions are the possibility of absolute transcendence of one’s body, language, and culture versus the inescapability of some immanence in the same, of standing in the world. I trace the historical trajectory of the modem spirit and conclude that the move from modernity to postmodemity has been a long, gradual one that continues today. Modern thought increasingly recognized the historical relativity and conditionedness of everything human, yet held on to at least one version of absolutism. Recognizing that all of even one’s own thinking is always incarnate and conditioned is the decisive point for entering postmodernity. The critical and non-critical aspects of the postmodem spirit are described. I next offer an evaluative overview of modern. theology, evaluate two movements in modern theology and philosophy-existentialism and process thought -- with important postmodern elements, and commend liberation theologies for exposing absolutistic assumptions of modem theology. Finally, with some trepidation I evaluate three types of self-consciously postmodern theology (which can find possible or actual counterparts in all the disciplines of the humanities). Radical or deconstructive postrnodernism hypothesizes total immanence in our representations of reality. It alternates between the relativistic standing everywhere of equally endorsing all interpretations and the standing nowhere of nihilism. In its hidden standard of absolute truth and its refusal to (claim a) stand in the world, radical postmodernism reveals itself to be modern rather than postmodern. Conservative posmodemism. or postliberalism emphasizes the importance of enculturation in a tradition. Hypothesizing immanence inincommensurate worldviews, its posture is defensive. Protestant postliberalism, including Radical Orthodoxy, postmodernly claims Christianity as a self-authenticating context of meaning, but then incoherently shifts into the posture of modem or pre-modern absolutism and claims it as the one true religion. Only moderate postmodernism can adequately reflect the postmodern spirit. It charts a course betvveen absolutism and relativism. It gives the critical aspect its due, affirming limited human transcendence. It grants that all persons are rooted in the world, that all are embodied and enculturated in some meaning.

David Naugle’s book, Worldview: The History of a Concept, offers a comprehensive, interdisciplinary history and analysis of the concept of worldview from an Evangelical Reformed perspective with the aim of converting it to Christian use-specifically, to disabuse it from association with historicisnl, relativism, and anti-realism. Despite his theological agenda, his wide ranging discussion provides good food for thought to anyone interested in the nature, history, and developnlent of the concept of worldview and the problems of historicism, relativism, and anti-realism. While his account of Polanyi’s understanding of worldview in connection vvith the natural sciences is sympathetic and sound, he does not draw as fully as he could have on the resources of Polanyi’s thought in developing his own more general understanding of worldview.

In this essay, I respond Dale Cannon’s critique of my book, Worldview: The History of a Concept. I am surprised that Professor Cannon, as a presumed devotee of Michael Polanyi, expected me to offer a scholarly objective discussion of the history of the concept of worldview. That I did attempt to do in part, but I also had the goal of rehabilitating the notion of worldview for use in a Christian context. I also respond to his criticism that I need to offer a more precise description of the concept of worldview itself as either pre-reflective or reflective in nature, and whether or not a worldview is epistemically representational or more Polanyian in character. I see it in both/and terms rather than the either/or ways Cannon has offered to me as options. I address his criticism that I neglect the place and role of the person in my resulting conception of worldview. While I could have spent more time on this issue, I point out that I ground the notion of worldview in the biblical teaching about the human “heart” as the seat and source of thought, affection, will and spirituality.