Rethinking Worldview is a good reintroduction to the concept as it was broached in the last century. If, in fact, as Bertrand says, the idea of worldview has fallen out of fashion, it is with a certain cynical self-superiority that such a position can be espoused. How can any of us say that we do not have some kind of internal and guiding view of the world? How can we claim that it does not have some unity with the culture around us, bearing the marks of the influence of others? Thus, Bertrand's book fills an important place in the intellectual life of the contemporary believer. If we live our lives unexamined we open ourselves to influences we would deny if confronted with them.

That said, Bertrand's four pillars (Creation, order, rationality and fear) seem to be convincingly argued but presented without alternative views. I find it hard to say that belief in Christ is central to salvation but claim at the same time that the biblical story of creation is precedent to a Christian world view. Is it not more likely that a person believes first in Christ and only later comes to appreciate the Creation account? Can we with certainty say that a person may not be a real Christian and yet not believe the whole Bible? Does that not relegate generations of true believers in early centuries who did not have a whole Bible to some odd place of spiritual ambiguity? I would rather have seen him present some kind of broader spectrum of ideas that can interact to form a Christian worldview. It seems to me that God Himself is more likely to be a pillar than His work or our response to Him.

Of course, he did not, so what he did say must be judged on its own merit. Viewing his bent toward apologetics (though he protests that he is poor at it) it is easy to see why he would choose philosophical rather than theological bases for his pillars. They are mostly consistent with classical philosophical disciplines, at least the rules of logic, correspondence, and consistency. Branching out as he does to define wisdom as a union of right thinking and right practice and then to insist that belief and the support of belief is a stronger basis for witness than mere intellectual debate makes for convincing grist in the current milieu. I like his desire to draw a cohesive "philosophy" of engaging the culture with intellectual and moral integrity. I also like his emphasis on truth in art as opposed to morality in art as a basis for Christian creativity. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, more than Christian books we need Christian writers. I fully embrace Bertand's protest that popular Christian art is lackluster, cheap and say with him that we need more who are dedicated to excellence in their art.

Though his writing is quite accessible he does assume a certain level of competence with philosophical ideas in his readers. It would be a mistake to think a high schooler or freshman could fully benefit from this book, though if they were precocious, they could get past the unfamiliarities. Rather it is a good book for a student at least being introduced to philosophy. Unfortuneately, it would be a little too directed for an introductory class. Suffice it to say that as a speaker he can tailor his material to his audience. As a writer he must expect the appropriate audience to come to him.