James W. Sire (1933–2018)

James Sire caught me with my proverbial pants down (so to say) with his Universe Next Door. Ostensibly, it goes through the six to ten (depending on how you count and group them) major philosophical schools and examines each one for strengths and flaws. He indeed covers the whole spectrum, from theism to nihilism to naturalism to existentialism to postmodernism. And his dutiful explanations of each school are decent; I’ll give him that. But sadly, it’s the last chapter that wallops you show more on the side of the head. After a competent exploration of the world of philosophy, he dumps all but one into a bucket labelled “Not Worth Your Time.” The conclusion he brings the book to is to that to live a “well-examined” life, one must be a Christian theist. That left a sour taste in my mouth. That is not to say that Christian theism isn’t a worthy worldview for some people. But simply dismissing billions of people as not living a good life is both insulting and deflating. If you must read this one, stop just before the end—trust me, you’ll feel a lot better about it. show less

Summary: A new edition of this foundational work on comparative worldviews, exploring the contours of various worldviews, including a new chapter on Islam, through the use of eight questions.

This book, in its six editions, has framed my adult working life. I first heard about the idea of worldview in lectures drawn from the author’s work while I was still a student. The first edition of The Universe Next Door was published during my first year working with InterVarsity/USA on their field show more staff. Now, forty-four years later, I still work with InterVarsity in a national role, and was delighted to receive a copy of the sixth edition of this work. During the intervening years, I came to know the author well enough when we collaborated on some student training and when I hosted him for several lecture opportunities. I learned he was working on the sixth edition the month before his passing. I am so glad to see its completion, with the able help of former InterVarsity Press editor Jim Hoover (who also happens to be a fellow Youngstown native!).

While the basic framework of the book hasn’t changed from forty four years ago, there have been a number of changes that reflect both growth in the author’s concept of worldview, as well as newly emerging trends in thought. For one thing, Sire’s understanding of worldview changed from one of ideas to the recognition of how we live and orient our affections and commitments in light of them. To his seven worldview questions around which each chapter was organized, he added an eighth: What personal, life-orienting core commitments are consistent with this worldview?

Sire was one of the first to recognize the coalescing ideas of new age thought as early as his first edition when he wrote of the “new consciousness.” Later he changed the name of this chapter to “the New Age” and recognized the rise of those who were “spiritual but not religious.” More recently, he added a chapter on post-modernism. With this edition, given the rise of Islam not only in the Middle East, but in Western countries, Winfried Corduan was invited to add a chapter on the Middle East.

I didn’t read editions two through five. What I can say is that in addition to the changes I’ve already noted each chapter shows signs of updating. For example, the chapter on deism includes a section on “moral therapeutic deism,” first described by sociologist Christian Smith. The new age material has been supplemented by discussions of the work of Ken Wilber and Deepak Chopra. In addition, sidebars added posthumously by Jim Hoover further elucidate the work. In addition, discussion questions have been added to each chapter and a chart is included at the end using the eight world view questions offering a brief side-by-side comparison of each of the worldviews.

The idea of worldview has come in for criticism. One critique is the overly intellectualized approach to worldview. Sire has recognized this, as noted above and newer editions recognize the affective and volitional aspects of worldview. Worldview has also been criticized for its polemical use in arguing for “the Christian worldview,” sometimes very narrowly defined. Sire’s Christian theism has a breadth to it lacking in some treatments, but there is no avoiding the fact that this text argues for the Christian faith over other worldviews. Jim Sire spent a good part of his life lecturing as a Christian apologist, and unapologetically so. He did not think contradictory things could all be true and elsewhere argued that one should only believe what one is convinced is true (Why Believe Anything at All?). What one finds here though is someone who loves ideas, even those he would disagree with, tries to understand others on their own terms, and represent them as they would themselves.

This is a work that respects its readers, candid not only about its intentions but its shortcomings. Sire admits his framework doesn’t easily fit Eastern thought. Worldviews are a means of understanding others, not pigeonholing them and dismissing them with a facile apologetic argument. He acknowledges recent challenges and the things he is still grappling with as well as the things of which he is convinced. This is a book that continued to grow through succeeding editions, reflecting an author who also was always learning, always growing. His last email to me was about questions related to new content in this book.

Would that all of us could be like him in this regard! I’m glad InterVarsity Press and Jim Hoover completed and published this work. It is not only a model of engagement but also a tribute to a gifted writer and apologist who did so much to develop the idea of worldview and gave so much encouragement to people who wondered if it was possible to think as well as live Christianly.

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. show less

I did not get very much out of this book except endnote references to other books, several of which I put in my Goodreads "interested" list. The reason comes down to my personal prejudice against the word "intellectual" and its connotations. Having developed and hardened in me over twenty-six years, it's much too strong and ingrained a prejudice for this book’s message to penetrate.

It is gratifying to me that early on, author James Sire speaks of British historian Paul Johnson and his show more skeptical view of intellectuals, in Johnson’s book of that title. Intellectuals happens to be the "foundational text" in the formation of my attitude; I read it twenty-six years ago. Consequently, for better or worse, I am so entrenched in my negative view of soi-disant intellectuals that trying to earnestly extol the virtues of being such an intellectual—the theme of this book--still leaves me very uncomfortable even if it's within the Christian worldview. Essentially, Johnson made the very word "intellectual" repellent to me: a word that is too weighted down by negative connotations of ungodly ideas from secular thinkers. That's the only relevant word I'm comfortable with--thinker. More comfortably generic.

In this book, I came across a passage noting that Christians have said "Jesus is the smartest man who ever lived." Pointing out the obvious, that Jesus is the wisest man who ever lived, would be good and true; but calling Him "smart" doesn't sound right, for forcing one to confront the superficiality of the word "smart." Have I not thought at length that "smart" doesn't always mean what most people think it means? “Smart” is often used to mean not “intelligent” but “fashionable” for all intents and purposes (e.g., "you're dressed smartly today"); and even if it’s being used to mean intelligent, still--what is "intelligence" anyway? That’s too complex to easily define. Wisdom is more easily identified and described. Jesus said wisdom is justified by her deeds (ESV); but...intelligence is? Not really.

Because of that, I don't respect the concept of the soi-disant intellectual, and would feel self-conscious (if not outright embarrassed) ascribing the word to myself or being known by the word. Why would that be necessary to a life frequent and habitual thought? Don't build a self-image (or, god forbid, a public image) upon constantly thinking. Just shut up and do it.

What makes me worry about Sire (notwithstanding that he's passed on) is this. Sire candidly admits that when young, he told his future wife that he wanted to be an intellectual [obviously meaning a public intellectual]; and the lady, with equal candor, called him a snob for that. He's admitting that as a young man, he was seemingly full of vanity. I feel uncertain whether life and God sufficiently purged him of such vanity before he wrote this book. Just because he's writing this in the first place--talking about how wonderful it is to be an intellectual, within his worldview--I worry.

I wonder whether Sire, in the years after he declared his desire to be an intellectual, ever went through what I went through back when I felt more like Sire as a young man. From early adolescence (probably even earlier) all the way to my mid-twenties, I thought I was terribly smart (yes, I would use that word) and, worse, that being smart was important. I call it "my I'm-so-smart phase." (In fact, that was why I read Paul Johnson's Intellectuals at age 20 in the first place. I came across it unexpectedly at the library, and I mistakenly thought it was a book about how great I was for being "smart"; essentially, I thought I was getting what James Sire's book here offers. I had no idea I would instead learn from Johnson that many prominent intellectuals have been horribly bad people.) Anyway, what God did to break me of it was simple. At age 24, I was in a certain 300-level American history course. The prof announced the top scores after each exam. I always made an A, but my A was never one of the top scores; and I was so upset at this that I never again felt the same overconfidence in my intellect. Better still, I ceased believing that being "smart" is particularly important.

I don't disagree with doing what Sire celebrates here--thinking. To be anti-intellectual would be absurd. I just don't care to talk about it or draw attention to it. I'd rather just do it. To dislike intellectuals is just not the same as not liking to think. It really helps to note that "think" is more significant as a verb than its noun form, "thought." show less

James W. Sire offers a great resource on how to analyze different genres of literature plus a worldview reading plan at the end of this short book. In the first chapter, he introduces the reader to how to study various types of writing from a biblical worldview. Chapter two demonstrates how to piece apart an essay with application to all nonfiction. The third chapter covers poetry, and the fourth is fiction. In these three chapters, Sire provides a list of questions for readers to use to show more look closely at a text, paragraph by paragraph, line by line, and word by word.

Next, in chapter 5, he brings the reader out to the broad view of context for a written piece, exploring how it fits with other literature, history, various ideologies, and the reader's own context. The author closes in chapter 6 with a discussion on how the reader can develop his own reading plan of good books and periodicals. The appendix contains a suggested reading plan and how to pick one's own quality reading materials.

The author tends to use some technical jargon from the world of literature studies. As a former English major, I found it rather enjoyable. Sire speaks to the reader in the first person and shares some of his personal experiences with great written works. So, the book is somewhat like being in a literature class. That said, I believe anyone who has a true desire to learn to read the classics or to be a more careful reader of any written work would benefit from this book. show less