Worldview theology strives for a universal triumphant ideal without the weight of particularity. As such it comes dangerously close to making the gospel ancillary to ideology. Christ and Christianity are not ideas competing in a marketplace of ideas. Christ does not contend with other philosophical schools for adherents. Christianity declares a historical incarnation, death, and resurrection, not a philosophy. To speak of Christ is to speak in harmony with Scripture, confession, and ecclesiastical office. To speak of Christ is to speak words of comfort. A worldview cannot comfort, it can only burden. To insist that a Christian must have a certain kind of worldview is to insist that faith must be supplemented by the right kind of opinion.
—Jason Wallace, “Whose Worldview?” (Part 3)
Nice. Very good. And it impinges on Christian liberty.
Worldview can–I repeat can–be a useful tool to analyze ideas, issues, practices, and systems (like law) for which there is no immediate (or deductive) biblical or confessional answer. Christian liberty does not equate to indeterminacy. Thus, unless one is a Clarkian, there are good opinions and poor ones and thoughtful worldview analysis (e.g., James Anderson) can help distinguish among them.
Even good worldview analysis is not appropriate from the pulpit and the current rash of mediocre (if not really bad) worldview analysis should not only be avoided but castigated. As I posted, it sets up young folks who have been indoctrinated in simplistic worldview thinking for a serious and potentially dangerous fall when they discover how insipid it was.