Abstract
Novelist Lewis Carroll wrote, “If you don’t know where you are going any road can take you there.” Carroll’s adage reminds educators that any coherent vision of education must define what a student should ideally be after undergoing a course of instruction. In Setting a Sustainable Trajectory, Rob Lindemann takes aim at questions which have troubled many Christian educators for years. The promotion and development of a biblical worldview is a notable goal, often an institutional priority, for many evangelical colleges and universities. Yet, little research exists seeking to bridge the theoretical concept of worldview to instructional techniques which cultivate its development in students. Similarly, many in higher education, either by instructional curiosity or institutional necessity, must assess whether the goal of worldview formation is being accomplished. As a Christian college professor and administrator, these issues are of vital concern to Lindemann and prompted his research. Of note, much of what he proposes may be applied to pre-collegiate education if slightly modified, at least at the secondary level.
The book is the publication of Lindemann’s 2016 doctoral dissertation—its five-chapter format will be familiar to anyone who has gone through the process. This provides the work certain strengths but can also be a source of strain for the reader. Positively, the book is explicit in detailing its intention to examine the methodology and assessment of worldview change in college students (chap. 1). The literature review (chap. 2) is sufficiently broad in presenting previous work in the area of worldview development and pedagogy, providing an interested reader a number of references for follow-up. Similarly, Lindemann’s research findings (chap. 4) and conclusions (chap. 5) provide a sufficient summary of the issues which continue to confront Christian educators interested in worldview instruction and assessment. Yet, the format also renders the work stiff and often unengaging. Readers must wade through the details of research methodology and its validity, descriptions of data collection and analysis, research ethics, etc., all in a tone intended to communicate both technical competence and theoretical understanding.
As a research study, it is often difficult to distinguish where Lindemann is reporting objective findings or subjectively promoting his beliefs. That stated, the book deviates from more traditional and theoretically-driven deductive methods of worldview instruction, whereby the student is treated like a square peg who must be conformed to the round hole of theological truth. Lindemann’s inductive approach allows him to be more student-centered and, as a result, more amenable to a broader set of psychological theories and instructional approaches. For example, Lindemann seems comfortable advocating constructivist-based strategies, as well as critical, active, and social pedagogies often associated with more progressive approaches to education. Similarly, worldview development cannot be accurately measured through more well-defined, content-oriented instruments (e.g. objective tests), but require more process-sensitive assessments. This is because worldview development is presented as progress in the ability to think critically from a set of biblical principles rather than assent to a set of theological propositions.
Yet, Carroll’s “any road” aphorism hangs over and often intrudes on Lindemann’s work. He often notes the distinctions among the experts he interviewed regarding the objectives, and hence the pedagogy, of worldview formation. The differing goals, and accompanying strategies, of his interviewed subjects highlight a long-standing difficulty among Christian educators who seek to promote worldview development. More than a century of wrangling among evangelicals and members of other Christian traditions has yet to produce a consensus regarding either what a worldview is or the essential character of a biblical one. Certainly, there are similarities which can make the study of worldview quite nuanced. Yet, despite a generally accepted nomenclature, this lack of consensus leaves the concept of worldview open to a myriad of definitions, often with differing existential consequences. As a result, the pursuit of worldview formation can be subject to varying instructional goals, pedagogical methods, or assessment techniques. Lindemann’s proposed model of worldview formation attempts, in many ways, to address varied evangelical conceptualizations of worldview, yet he must also acknowledge certain “dangers” associated with each component. These dangers seem to reflect the varied assumptions regarding the nature of worldview, existential ramifications, and instructional ramifications. Personally, I find Lindemann’s model appealing, yet it may be that I am willing to entertain notions regarding worldview that not every reader may be willing to accept.