DIAGNOSING WORLDVIEWS OF URBAN POPULATIONS:
CASE STUDY AND THEORY
Daniel V. Porter, Ph.D.
Dan Porter and his wife Bonnie lived and worked in Europe for twenty years, primarily researching and beginning new startups. The Porters have three married sons and seven grandchildren on two continents. Dan is currently a worldview coach for organizations and individuals internationally (Ph.D. Reformed Theological Seminary).
Published in “Contextualization” of www.GlobalMissiology.org July, 2012
ABSTRACT
Urban populations are increasingly diverse with many competing culture groups. The cultural mores of each particular group do not just happen and are not easily changed, because they are ruled largely by tacit and unquestioned assumptions passed on from generation to generation—their worldview. This study explores the grounds of worldview, where our assumptions come from, and the extent to which they affect our daily lives. And, it explores scriptural resources available to the people of God in order to discern our and others' assumptions and their pedigree. Three case studies were conducted demonstrating replicability of findings over differing generations and cultures. The author brings a fresh approach to modern complexities that continue to stymie us. The findings are preliminary, intending to further dialogue.
INTRODUCTION
The topic of this paper is diagnosing worldview assumptions biblically. One assumption of this author is that the Bible is God’s manual for his mission to the world. Therefore, believers should expect God’s Word to offer the best guidance for diagnosing worldview assumptions.
My first training was as a social scientist, so I tend to analyze situations from that training and then find scriptural warrant for my conclusions. Only after years of missional ‘field work’ and then graduate studies in theology and Bible, did I come to actually treat Scripture as my starting point. These two trainings and experience allow me to assert that the Bible offers superior diagnoses to the social sciences, which we know sometimes provide excellent diagnoses but almost invariably suggest inadequate solutions at best (Van Til 1967, 67). The Bible provides both. And I still use science.
A second assumption of this author for this audience is that all believers are involved, to one degree or other, in God’s mission to the world. God has called us and is discipling us in order that we might call and disciple our family, our church, and others in our community: neighbors, colleagues, and those in other cultures or worldviews.
Suppose that you are in a new-to-you cultural situation in a large urban setting. Further imagine that you could quickly understand the other person’s worldview assumptions and how the gospel could best communicate to them. It is this author’s contention, based on his dissertation findings (Porter 2009), that Paul, the first century Christian apostle to the Hellenists, appears to have done just that, using the Ten Words (Commandments), and that we can learn to do this as well.
Fig. 1 Individuals and cultures are like a fruit tree
Individuals and cultures are notoriously complex and difficult to understand. This paper attempts to explicate this complexity as three layers, or parts of a tree, based on biblical metaphors such as the vine and branches (Jn 15), olive tree (Rom 11) and the four soils of receptivity (Mt 13). Nevertheless, it must be remembered that layers of complexity, and cause and effect, in individuals and cultures are not clearly distinguished and tend to blend. For example, it is difficult to distinguish what are our real beliefs, that which we assume, from beliefs we have acquired later, often our stated beliefs.
Assumptions: Ground Out Of Which We Grow
Using the plant metaphor, our unspoken worldview assumptions are like the soil in which our roots are planted, and are the ground out of which we and our cultural communities grow. We come into this world as egoists, unreached, without God and actually biased against him even before we have done anything. Then, we grow up and learn, we send down roots, by means of what we see and hear through childhood, predominately from our family. The behaviors and speech-acts we saw in our parents as young children and the behaviors we ourselves first began to practice influenced how we came to consider the world around us. Over time our practices, thinking, feelings and attitudes became our ‘worldview’ assumptions. These are mostly extra-biblical, if not anti. At best they are a mixed bag of fact and fable, perceptions and prejudices, science and myth, wisdom and old-wives tales. Over time, our assumptions become tacit, or unaware (some assert that ninety percent of what we know), lurking in the background, influencing or even determining our choices and approach to life, how we interpret the world around us (Hall 1959, 64-5, 73; Polanyi 1983, 58; Olthuis 1985, 153-64, in Naugle 2002, 349).
Culture: The Trunk And Branches
The trunk and branches of a tree represent the implicit structures of society such as beliefs, plausibility structures, language and other symbol systems, as well as the explicit cultural institutions such as government, law and education. Culture, gained mostly through our educational system, the media and peers, becomes like a layer added over our initial family-based grounding, our assumptions. What most American Evangelicals learn in church falls in this category due to the dualism inherent in Western culture and human resistance to grow biblically.
Lifestyle: The Fruit
The fruit represents our outward persona: behavior, speech, lifestyle and outward customs. Again, it is important to note that the three layers are not clearly distinguished but tend to blend. Also note that while Christian leaders tend to focus on change in lifestyle as indicative of Christian growth, outward fruit actually stems from our and our group’s culture and assumptions.
Society, particularly today’s globalized urban setting, consists of contrasting cultures, each with their own particular set of worldview assumptions, coexisting together and oftentimes clashing. Nevertheless, there are similarities between their assumptions that are distortions of the truth (Rom 1:21): (1) distorted view of God, including Fate, (2) monistic, that is, a single all-encompassing, explanation for reality, either: (a) naturalistic (physical explanation for everything), or (b) mystical (metaphysical explanation for everything), (3) some version of reality, or nature, that is inherently not good, random, illusional, or something similar, and (4) humans are merely a group of atoms or are animals and therefore of low worth or at best neutral; at the same time they have limitless potential, characterized by ‘man is okay’/’good’ and ‘man can’ accomplish anything.
The church is a ‘mixed bag’ with adherents holding both natural worldview assumptions and biblical givens resulting in “split-level living” (Hiebert et al. 1999, 28). We tend to live two lives by setting up walls to artificially separate two lifestyles, one for church and the other for the rest of life. This ‘spiritual schizophrenia’ weakens the Church and individual members, and its communication of the gospel. The research concern of this paper is how to accurately diagnose this mixture within and without the Church, and the assumptions of other cultural groups in the city.
It is the very fact of being unaware that give assumptions their power, both for good and for bad. Almost in every case, assumptions determine and trump our stated beliefs and behavior. This is the reality that pastors, missionaries, and church leaders battle with daily, attempting to disciple believers and build the Church. The research question of this paper is: how to diagnose?
Momentary reactions to daily life are usually insufficient to bring our assumptions to our awareness. Life universals—significant events like birth, death, marriage, divorce, job loss, conversion, and crossing cultures—are more likely to be sufficient to unmask these assumptions. Those are rare and unique times offering the potential for significant change, or transformation. Usually, however, the person quickly resumes his/her everyday life at breakneck speed with little time for reflection or lasting change.
This paper briefly summarizes the author’s dissertation research on this question: essential definitions, methodology, biblical case studies and findings, contemporary case study with worldview questionnaire instrument and findings, and final theory and recommendations for further research. It concludes with a brief description of post-doctoral work to further test the theory.
RESEARCH
The research is constructed around certain essential definitions, methodology and research design, biblical case studies and derived theory, a contemporary case study with the Worldview Questionnaire, and final findings, theory and conclusions.
Definitions
1. Worldview can be said to be the set of assumptions which all individuals and groups possess about the state of the world, how it works, and why. Worldview is used today in at least two senses: (1) The popular sense, which includes an idea or picture of how reality is perceived and interpreted by a cultural group to help its members live successfully in their world; (2) the modern technical discussion, which includes these generally agreed upon assertions about worldview: (a) universal mental categories; (b) reality visually and symbolically grasped; (c) understood to be tacit; (d) can be employed to predict behavior or vice versa, and therefore utilizable in worldview transformation theory; (e) assumed to be neutral by most Christian and other theorists (i.e., can be utilized by Christian or any other perspective), and thus imbued with Christian meaning and application (Hall 1959; Polanyi 1983; Olthuis 1985, in Naugle 2002, 349; Wolters 1985; Hoffecker 1986; Apostel 1991, in Clément 2000; Sire 1997; Naugle 2002).
2. Hermeneutics is the theory or method of interpretation, usually of texts, also of cultures; from Greek (hermeneutikos, hermeneuein ‘interpret’). The theory one brings to the text, to interpret the text in light of the context, or to interpret the text to the context. Hermeneutics is more context, or present environment-oriented, than exegesis. It can be argued that every interpreter has a viewpoint, which is assumed in this study. Worldview assumptions are primarily an interpretation of reality (see Goldsworthy 1987, 2000, 406), and therefore primarily hermeneutical.
3. Covenant is the defining characteristic of God’s relationship to his people and the biblical way of life. In the Ancient Middle East, covenant was the primary way that unrelated parties were able to coexist (Averbeck 1995). Covenant, or the theory of covenantal theism for this study, is the mutual bond of love and loyal commitment (hesed) initiated and guaranteed by God, the senior partner. It is God’s presence in the midst of his people, a relationship with him. Covenant represents God’s purpose for humankind (Currid 2007, 62-3); Mendenhall 1954; Kline 1968; Weinfeld 1973; Robertson 1980; Averbeck 1995). It can be argued that God is in covenant with creation, not in a dualism, and therefore, no dualism exists between Scripture (what God spoke/revealed) and science (the study of what God made).
4. Case Study is a qualitative social-cultural inquiry that investigates a particular case of human activity, or scene, within its local, real-life context, rather than an external quantitative sampling of a population. It relies on multiple sources of evidence, particularly allowing subjects to speak for themselves, in order to converge data in a triangulation. Case study methodology may be theory driven or grounded in actual data (Nachmias & Nachmias 1992; Yin 1994; Creswell 1998; Maxwell 1996; Bellah et al. 1986). Gangel (2008) and others have applied this methodology to the study of ancient texts, which also allows Scripture to speak for itself. It is important to note that whereas quantitative statistical analysis of a sampling is generalizable to the whole population, qualitative analysis is not generalizable beyond the group studied. However, theory can be derived which is generalizable to broader theory (Yin 1994, 36).
Methodology
Prior theory from the literature was kept to a minimum approaching the research, used mainly to establish the horizons and derive a mutually complementary theory in order to test replicability across three cases from differing cultures and epochs. Emphasis is, instead, placed on deriving theory from actual biblical, and therefore revelational, cases. Scripture is assumed to be the main reference point or locus of meaning, primary literature source, provides the warrant for this study, and is the final court of appeal (Van Til 1955, 35). Three horizons are triangulated in order to multiply perspective, approximate reliability and strengthen theory: (1) the Judeo-Christian scriptures provide the biblical ontology, (2) ethnohermeneutic theory, particularly worldview theory, to understand assumptions and how they function, and (3) qualitative research methodology theory to design the case studies and methodology for acquiring data.
Covenantal theism theory and qualitative research methodology were selected and their mutual complementarity demonstrated: (1) the interactive design model (Maxwell 1996, 4) parallels relationality built into creation, especially the Covenant, (2) the iterative tacking approach to problem solving (Maxwell) parallels the Hebrew relational approach to knowing, (3) documented warrant (Creswell 1998) takes reality seriously paralleling Scripture, (4) the real life context basis for case studies (Yin 1994, 13) parallels biblical concreteness, (5) case study applied to ancient texts (Gangel 1998) allows Scripture to speak for itself paralleling its own self claims, (6) placing a priority on public conversation (Bellah et al 1986, 305-6) parallels biblical openness and its presentation of the whole truth “warts and all,” and (7) theory is strengthened by actual cases and replication (Creswell 1998) paralleling the biblical approach of universality derived from revelation in particular cases. This mutual complementarity between two fields of theory (covenantal theism and social science) mistakenly thought to be a dualism, and therefore incompatible, strengthens replicability across the three cases.
Research Design
The design of the research is to conduct a contemporary case study on the basis of theory grounded in two biblical case studies. The Old Testament case study is of Moses’ record in Exodus and Deuteronomy of God’s dramatic rescue of Iron-age Israel from slavery in Egypt and renewing his Covenant with them in the wilderness. The New Testament case study is of the Apostle Paul including first century hellenistic Ephesians in the Covenant and his use of the Ten Words in the induction process, based on Luke’s narrative in The Acts of the Apostles and Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians. Consequent theory is derived, and a research questionnaire based on the Ten Words is constructed. This instrument is then tested on two small related cultural scenes in a large metropolitan area of the United States. Findings from the three cases are analyzed and compared and further theory derived.
Old Testament Case Study (Exodus and Deuteronomy)
This rich case study provides an explicit retelling of the lives and culture of an actual people group approximately 3800 years ago. Available ‘transcripts’ of original research conducted at the time corroborate reliability of oral traditions. It is this text and not the actual episode that is mined for clues and data, as is similarly the case in all historical research. Significant findings include: covenant pervades on many, if not all, levels, a fresh take on the Ten Words (so-called apodictic commands), and the role (largely lost) of biblical givens in the life of the believing community. The Old Testament case study of the liberation of Israel as a nation and the renewal of the Covenant under Moses yields six further findings.
One. God was the focus of the entire episode. Every part of the setting and everything that occurred was set within God's sovereign plan and purpose. What occurred on Mt. Sinai was a fulfillment of God's promise and was to Israel's benefit.
Two. Moses' transcript describes how the Israelites were in extreme distress and could not save themselves. God's people had to be liberated first, followed by renewing the Covenant.
Three. Close examination of the stipulations and case laws uncovers evidence that, most likely, the Israelite’s behavior was far different than that of the God with whom they were in covenant. Normal humans, they faced every deprivation and
new experience with fear and unbelief, which, in fact, prevented the generation liberated from slavery from entering the Promised Land.
Four. The centerpiece of the entire biblical scene was the giving of the Ten Words of God. In fact, the Ten Words themselves are the chief theory and findings of this case study: (1) God is the One, Unique, who rescues from what you yourself cannot escape, render to him alone exclusive loyalty; (2) give God glory in everything; craft no substitutes, icons or idols; (3) trust all your ways with all your heart to God; (4) set aside every seventh day to focus on God, to rest in his grace; (5) honor and respect parents and all authority; (6) no murder; treat others as you want to be treated, (7) no adultery; keep loving only your first love (wife); (8) no taking what is not yours; do not defraud others; (9) no lying or favoritism; and (10) no coveting; be content with what God provides.
Five. These Ten Words are the creative core of the Covenant and subsequent covenantal way of life: (1) they were accompanied by wondrous and unmistakable signs of deity--clear indications that it was God dealing directly with his people; (2) they revealed what God was like, and not like; (3) they tested the people to see if they would obey--a sign of faith (they failed); (4) they created hope of a new humanity; (5) they set boundaries around what a covenant people were to be like; (6) they explained love in action; finally, (7) the Ten Words were to be learned in order to teach others: their children and outsiders.
Six. The Ten Words, the instructional stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant, and succeeding 613 case laws, were a body of authoritative givens. The Ten Words carved in stone appear to be intended to parallel the character of God himself. As a people, the children of Israel were called (Sh'ma, Dt 6) to love the Lord with all their being, to love one another, and to pass on their covenantal way of life to others.
New Testament Case Study (Ephesians 4-6)
The Case Study method lets the texts “speak for themselves.” The context and worldview of the fledgling believers of the Roman Province of Asia is hinted at in the text and most certainly influenced Paul's instructions. The new covenant guidance that he offers parallels Moses' Ten Words point by point, and, at the same time, indirectly critiques the assumptions of their former worldview and what the Gentiles around them still assumed.
The New Testament case study of Paul’s instructions to the new covenant believers in Ephesus yields the following findings. (1) The Ten Words are found to be in full use after the pivotal inauguration of the New Covenant. (2) The case study in Ephesians 4-6 demonstrates that Paul adapted the Ten Words to a new set of believers and members of the covenant Community—the Gentiles. (3) Paul's communication to them follows the same covenantal structure of the renewal of the Covenant through Moses. Note four parallels: (1) the paean of praise to God and for every blessing to the Ephesians was part of his covenantal plan "before the Creation," paralleling God's theophany and covenantal plan for Israel in Exodus; (2) The Ephesians, Gentiles, were without God and excluded from the covenants of promise and citizenship, similarly as the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt: both were without hope; (3) the Ephesians were called, saved, made alive "in Christ," to put off the old and put on the new, just as the Israelites were renewed in the Covenant centuries prior; (4) having been rescued, the new Gentile believers were given similar instructional stipulations, even though communicated in different order and wording, as the Ten Words had been given to Israel.
In addition, the Covenant, anchored by the Ten Words, diagnosed the Gentiles' old worldview assumptions in radical fashion: (1) their monistic mental habits of integration, accommodation, and allegorical reasoning were futile; (2) the dualistic notion that a deeper reality lay behind the apparent cast doubt on the truth and was itself not telling the truth; (3) the attitudes of “man is good or okay” and “man can"— achieve whatever he/she sets his/her mind to—stem from the belief that humans are both divine and beast, and can ruin ourselves and others in the process, resulting in murderous thoughts if not the deed; (4) yearning, actually covetousness, is exacerbated by the ideal-material dualism, whereby our material reality is a form of prison sentence in comparison to the perfect ideal; (5) inescapable and deterministic fate ruling everything can lead to rebellion and bitterness; (6) these are all part of the one, all encompassing reality of the monistic worldview, denying the God who is unique and over all created reality.
Consequent Theory and Worldview Questionnaire Instrument
From these two biblical case studies, a comprehensive covenantal theism theory was derived: (1) covenant pervades on many, if not all, levels of reality; (2) the Ten Words are the core of the Covenant, God's plan for his people: (a) they were given by God with specific didactic roles; (b) their principles and role in covenantal thinking could be adopted by Paul for a different audience and still perform the same function as the original Ten; (c) they cut both ways--they describe what God is like and were instructional stipulations for what his being in the midst of his people entailed, and also serve as indicators of why the old worldview assumptions are not like God's ways, nor acceptable for fellowshipping with him.
Additionally, the mutually complementary covenantal theism and qualitative research methodology theories allows parallel methodology (case study) on all three cultural scenes: Old Testament, New Testament and the contemporary. If the Ten Words are applicable to all three (Covenant is the primary way God relates to his people in all generations and cultures, the Ten Words are the core of the Covenant, and God’s Word diagnoses motives and unaware worldview assumptions Heb 4:12), then diagnostic function is assumed in theory. This allows construction of a worldview questionnaire instrument based on the Ten Words in order to test parallel usage among twenty-first century urban Americans.
The inherent power and authority of the Ten Words to critique culture is the assumption for the 'Worldview Self-Test' administered to thirteen volunteer respondents in a metropolitan area in twenty-first century America. A review of twenty-four Christian, Jewish, and non-religious works yielded a variety of meanings for the Ten Words as a whole and individually. Further, an exegetical study was conducted on the primary texts: Exodus, Deuteronomy and Ephesians, in addition to a diachronic survey throughout Scripture, in order to individuate baseline principles for each. Ten questions or series of related questions were developed to elicit responses for the ten
principles, and then randomly ordered
Contemporary Case Study
Three groups were identified in a large metropolitan area of the United States in late 2008, and two related groups were selected for the study. Group One consisted of eight associated IT professionals in the private sector and at a higher educational institution. They identified themselves as “unchurched,” although some had attended in childhood. Group Two consisted of eleven who identified themselves as Christian believers and members of the same church for at least ten years. One pivotal associate of Group One was also a member of this church, and so was a bridge between the two groups.
The study was conducted almost entirely utilizing various social media. Emails were exchanged to explain the study, its purpose, and how it was to be conducted, to communicate human rights protection, secure their permission, and provide a link to the online questionnaire. The instrument was administered through Google.docs, allowing for a completely anonymous questionnaire and a spreadsheet of responses for the administrator. General comments and further contact were allowed at their discretion. Of the original eleven churched members of Group Two, eight completed the questionnaire. Of the original eight in Group One, five completed the questionnaire. All were extremely challenged by the difficulty of being asked to think in this manner. In addition, the questionnaire created good ‘buzz’ among the
unchurched, and one placed his/her faith in Christ and is now being discipled by the Christian associate from the churched group.
Volunteered responses yield findings similar to findings in the two biblical case studies. These are demarcated by the churched, who primarily evidence instruction from God's stipulations, and the unchurched, who express evidence of some other sources of worldview mixed with vestiges of the Ten Words. Findings include: (1) God and the Bible are mentioned in almost all responses of the churched group, while the self and conventional wisdom are the referents of choice for the unchurched group; (2) all the responses of the churched group are above the fixed mean (mid-point between Scripture and some unidentified alternative source of worldview conviction), while all but one of the unchurched group fall below the mean; (3) all of the unchurched respondents exhibit a mixture of sources, whereas only the most distant two or three of the churched group exhibit another source from biblical; (4) some responses from the unchurched parallel the following worldview assumptions Paul critiqued in his letter to the Ephesians: (a) synthetic-integration mindset; (b) moralism as an end-product of allegorical reasoning; (c) "man can" thinking with the self as reference point; (d) yearning for the ideal or perfect; (e) naturalism (monism), with God either being denied or seen as a pantheistic ally immanent within reality.
CONCLUDING THEORY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Case study research allows the transcripts to speak for themselves and respondents to control what is known about them (Bellah, et al 1986), reflecting their dignity as created subjects. Research outcomes are dependent on real data, and they are dependent, as well, on human understanding of the data. Theory from the three theory areas and data from the three cases have been examined and compared. Substantial replication and triangulation has been found and specific examples noted. A tentative, new three-part theory is noted as cohering throughout.
First, covenant pervades all of life: a covenantal theism theory was developed from Jewish ontic hermeneutics and Reformed Protestant covenant theory. It was noted as the operational key to all three cases: the covenant renewal through Moses, the covenantal approach of Paul and covenant renewal with the Ephesians, and the covenantal approach of this researcher to the contemporary case.
Second, because covenant pervades on many levels, if less apparently today than in the Ancient Middle East, it also diagnoses, or critiques, other worldviews. The researcher used covenantal theory to critique both worldview theory and integrative/qualitative research methodology theory, resulting in a covenantal theism theory which includes a degree of complementarity with the qualitative research methodology (i.e., no dualism).
Third, the Ten Words are the creative core of the Covenant as a means to induct new members and diagnose their old worldviews. The transcripts of the Old and New Testament cases reveal this functional role and are corroborated by the third case: in the authoritative giving of the Ten Words by God himself from Mt. Sinai as covenant authoritative stipulations, by Paul's use of the Ten Words to include the Ephesians in the covenant community, and by references to the Ten Words in the responses of the contemporary churched group. A vestige also could be identified in one unchurched response, identifying the Ten Commandments specifically as the basis for boundaries.
Finally, the use of the Worldview Self-Test, based on the Ten Words, demonstrates their ability to diagnose worldview and demarcate what is biblical learning and what is learning from other sources. The Worldview Self-Test, is a specific application of the scriptural diagnostic function, taken directly from the Ten Words. The initial experiments in this dissertation demonstrate that it has the ability both to delineate a person’s worldview per se and to test it against the criteria of the Ten Words. It also demonstrates that responses are replicable across different groups in different cultures and epochs. It is recommended that further field-testing is necessary to develop its applicability and validity.
Post-doctoral Field Testing
The researcher has continued to test theory by a number of different means: (1) focus groups, (2) developing stories, (3) developing other questionnaires, (4) applications to life universals, and (5) by writing articles and papers to stimulate others to join the conversation. Four focus groups looked at the research completed, in particular the instrument used, and brainstormed alternative approaches.
One suggestion was to develop biblical and contemporary stories of real-life events that portray one or more of the Ten Word-principles. Five stories have been developed and tested on a few audiences in the U.S. and is pending in Africa. Research is needed to develop and test these in a variety of cultural scenes.
Another suggestion was to develop a ‘lite’ or ‘pop’ version suitable for some social network media geared more for young people. Several versions have been developed and tested. Evaluations received on the questions themselves suggested various alterations, but none have been found to provide more accurate data than the original. Research is needed to make these more suitable to social media and to provide feedback and links for respondents. These then need implementation on various sites for testing.
Examining the worldview change in short-term missions participants has been suggested. To be developed are application to new church members and catechism, and to various counseling situations: marriage and divorce, job loss, and death.
Articles written include “Grounds of worldview: Towards an understanding,” submitted to GlobalMissiology, and reading the current at a regional EMS meeting. Note: this is a work in its infancy. I do not claim to have all the answers, but many questions. Much collaboration is necessary to bring it to maturity. Thank you for your attention. I am ready for questions.
Appendix One
"Worldview Self-Test"
The purpose of this questionnaire is to help you understand your worldview. There are no right or wrong answers; answer what is valid for you. The lighter wording is intended as helper questions--you do not need to answer all of them. You may think that the wording betrays a particular bias, but you may treat the questions according to yours.
Write your first thoughts, not a book! Try to limit yourself to 3-4 minutes or a short paragraph per question. You may not be used to some of the language, or thinking about things this way. That is okay. To help understand a question, think of the main topic of the particular question and what is being asked about it. If you get stuck, just go on to the next question.
If you wish to discuss further, or desire a summary of the findings, contact me: db@porter.net
1. The nature of Reality. What is reality to you? Is there an Ultimate Reality? How do you know?
2. Integrity. How are justice, truth and honesty vs lying, cheating and deceit perceived, demonstrated in your life?
3. Who/what you Love. What or who is the most important thing in your life, the highest value to you? To what or to whom do you give allegiance? Rank your values.
4. Trust and Respect. What or whom do you respect, trust, and for what reasons? Why not?
5. Power and Influence. How do you think power/ authority should be used or not and for what ends? How do you view power/authority?
6. Value of the Individual and His/Her Work. What are your attitudes towards the value of the individual, work, personal property? How do you view theft, corruption and waste?
7. A Question of Limits and focus. Whom do you trust to set limits? Why? How to redeem the time?
8. Pleasure and Appetite. What do you covet, desire, envy, long for? How do you attempt to acquire: prestige, power, wealth, things?
9. Loyalty or Lust. How do you feel about adultery, marriage, pornography & other expressions of loyalty or its opposite? Do you view loyalty & lust as mutually exclusive or compatible?
10. Life and Death. What value do you place on life? What are your attitudes toward life? How should it be lived? How should it end? Is there anything after it?
Appendix Two
Ten Word Diagnostic and Criteria
One approach, certainly, is to merely read each biblical criterion and let them discuss. However, at this stage of development, it is generally more helpful to gain their responses before knowing that this is from the Bible and especially that the Ten Words actually give criteria. Here are the ten diagnostic issues represented in the Ten Words and the biblical criteria they provide (for leaders only; use at your discretion):
#
Issues Criteria
Focus
1(1) Ultimate reality I am the One who rescues you; no other Gods (exclusive loyalty
2(3) Who/what you love (Craft) no icons/idols (substitutes); give God glory in everything
3(5) Power/authority Do not misuse My name; trust all
your ways
with all your heart to Me
4(7) Whom do I trust to Set aside every seventh day & other -- #4 Both/
set limits; how to use special days to enjoy Me; rest in either
time wisely? My
grace
5(4) Trust/respect Honor parents and all authority
6(10) Life & Death Do not murder; treat others as you want to be treated
7(9) Loyalty or Lust Do not fornicate; keep loving only your first love (wife)
8(6)
Individual & Work Do
not steal; no taking what is not 
Value yours; do not defraud others
9(2) Integrity Do not lie or slander; no favoritism
10(8) Pleasure & Appetite Do not covet; be content with what God provides
Appendix Three
Sample Response Transcript
1. The nature of Reality: How do you understand reality? (Include the imaginary, if you wish) What is really real? Do you believe in an Ultimate reality? How do you know?
Yes, I believe in an "ultimate" reality. I believe in a scientific view of reality, and by definition there is only one truth. However, I also believe that perception of reality can be radically different based on your perspective, a la Einstein's theory of relativity. I'm not sure humans can perceive all of reality though.
2. Integrity: How are justice, truth, trust, honesty vs lying, cheating and deceit perceived, demonstrated in your life?
Integrity is what holds society together so it adds value. And as socialized creatures we value and desire to have integrity, just like a dog wants to please a person. And because other people value Integrity, over the long-term people with Integrity are rewarded by better social success. I do believe this is "built in" to people, genetically not just learned.
3. What you Value: What or who is the most important thing in life, the highest value to you? To what or to whom do you give allegiance? Rank some of your values.
Immediate family (wife & children) 2. Friends
3. Extended family 4. Work associates.
4. Trust and Respect: Whom do you respect; trust? Or, on what do you base these? What/who is the basis for your authority? How do you honor/respect authority? Or, to what extent and on what basis would you honor/respect someone or an institution?
Trust and respect are VERY different. I respect many people I don't trust, and vice versa. I respect skills, knowledge, and work ethic. I trust based on track record of keeping promises and honesty. Both must be proven by direct or indirect actions. Indirect actions are awards or recommendations from trusted assiciates. Ultimately I respect people who can teach me something that will make me better. I trust people whom I can open up with and expose my weaknesses or rely on. I don't particularly honor/respect institutions.
5. Power and Influence: How do you view and use power/authority? Or, how do you think it should be used or not, and for what ends?
Power is usually earned, I've met very few powerfull people who didn't deserve it at some point in their lives. However, once it is earned, it can be given (ie, control of money). Power should be used benevelevently, because it will be taken away if it isn't. Yes, those with power have a responsibility to use it.
6. Value of the Individual and His Work: What are your attitudes towards the value of the individual; work; personal property? What are your attitudes regarding theft, corruption, waste, redistribution of wealth?
I'm a strong free-market capitalist, and have a strong protestant work ethic. Individuals have value in what they can contribute to society, but the "invisible hand of the market" causes selfish behaviours to improve the whole. I'm opposed to redistribution of wealth unless by market forces (which it will ineviably do). The only hitch with this is that transparency is needed to prevent corruption and theft causing the system to fail.
7. A Question of Limits: How do you understand boundaries or limits? Or, do you believe in limits? What is your attitude towards keeping things in proportion or not?
Limits and boundaries are flexible depending on the situation. I don't generally believe in hard rules. Keeping things in proportion is important, but those who don't will fail anyway.
8. Pleasure and Appetite: What do you covet, desire, envy, long for? How do you (attempt to) acquire: prestige, power, wealth, things?
Maslow's heirarchy of needs: food, shelter, security, love, self-actualization. Pretty straightforward. I'm at the security step right now. Want to get to the point where I don't worry about money. Power is important to my ego, but I'm learning as I get older (I'm 37) that it really isn't needed.
9. Loyalty and Lust: How do you feel about marriage, adultery, pornography; other expressions of loyalty or its opposite? Do you view loyalty and lust as mutually exclusive?
Hmmm. Not mutually exclusive. Lust is just an emotion that doesn't matter without actions. Porn is not adultery. Marriage is the ulimate committment of loyalty. However, adultery and temporary indescressions are not a reasons to end marriages. If my wife had an affair, I hope she would never tell me. I worry much more about emotional affairs and sexual.
10. Life and Death: How would you explain your position on life and death? What value do you place on life? What are your attitudes toward life? How should it be lived? How should it end? Is there anything after it?
I'm a clear agnostic, kinda believe in god but not sure I believe in an afterlife. If Hell is the absence of God, then maybe Hell is really that last fleeting second, feeling bad about how you've lieved your life. Don't want that either. So I'm undecided.
REFERENCES CITED
Apostel, Leo and Van der Veken, Jan. 1991. Wereldbeelden. DNB/Pelckmans, cited in Clément, Vidal. An enduring philosophical agenda: Worldview construction as a philosophical method. http:www.philsciarchive.pitt. edu/archive/ 00003335/01/vidal2007-wp.pdf [accessed 03/01/08].
Averbeck, Richard E. 1995. Law. In Cracking Old Testament codes: A guide to interpreting Old Testament literary forms, ed. D. Brent Sandy and Ronald L. Giese, Jr., 116-118, 121, 129, 134. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers.
Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton. 1986. Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. New York: Perennial Library.
Creswell, John W. 1998. Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Currid, John D. 2007. The Hebrew world-and-life view. In Revolutions in worldview, ed. W. Andrew Hoffecker. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing.
Gangel, Kenneth. 2008. Teaching with case studies. http://www.bible.org/ page.php? page_id= 2742 [accessed 06/23.2008].
Goldsworthy, Graeme. 2000. The Goldsworthy trilogy. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Press.
Hall, Edward T. 1959. The silent language. Greenwich, CT: Premier Fawcett.
Hiebert, Paul G., R. Daniel Shaw, and Tite Tiénou. 1999. Understanding folk religion: A Christian response to popular beliefs and practices. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
W. Andrew Hoffecker, ed. 1986. Building a Christian world view. Vol. 1. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.
, ed. 2007. Revolutions in worldview. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing.
Maxwell, Joseph A. 1996. Qualitative research design. Qualitative Research Methods, vol. 41. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mendenhall, G. E. 1955. Law and covenant in Israel and the ancient Near East. The Biblical Archaeologist 17:26-76.
Frankfort-Nachmias, Chava, and David Nachmias. 1992. Research methods in the social sciences. 4th ed. London: Worth Publishing, Ltd. Quoted in Robert K. Yin. Case study research: Design and methods, 2d ed., 18. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1994.
Naugle, David. 2002. Worldview: The history of a concept. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Olthuis, James H. et al. 1970. Out of concern for the church: five essays. Toronto: Wedge Pub. Co.
Polanyi, Michael. 1983 (1966). The tacit dimension. Gloucester, MD: Peter Smith.
Porter, Daniel. 2009. Covenantal hermeneutic of worldview. Ph.D. diss., Reformed Theological Seminary.
Robertson, O. Palmer. 1980. The Christ of the covenants. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.
Sire, James. 1997. The universe next door: A basic worldview catalog. 3d ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Van Til, Cornelius. 1955. The defense of the faith. Philadelphia: P & R. Publishers.
. 1967. Christian theistic evidences. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishers. Quoted in Ed Hinson and Howard Eyrich, eds. 1997. Totally sufficient. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers.
Weinfeld, M. 1973. Covenant terminology in the ancient Near East and its influence on the West. Journal of the American Oriental Society 93:190-273.
Wolters, Albert M. 1985. Creation regained: Biblical basics for a reformational worldview. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans.
Yin, Robert K. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods. 2d ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.