A Point on the use of “sacramental” and “worldview”

A friend urged caution on the repetitive use of terms like “worldview” and “sacramental.” I concur that there is certainly an overuse of these terms. But is it possible that these words are still not familiar enough? In theo-speak circles they are used as often as conjunctions, but in most of the evangelical circles terms like worldview and sacramental are quite odd and if ever defined. So, are they still useful? do they still have function in modern evangelical grammar? I tend to think that they are still helpful.

A worldview still describes a way of thinking about the world; thus, a Christian worldview still conveys the sense the word attempts to convey– that of comprehensiveness and exhaustiveness. Likewise, sacramental is still helpful. Something sacramental, to quote James Jordan, can refer “to things sacred or to rituals.” For instance, God’s world is sacramental; it displays the majesty and sacredness of God. On the other hand, God’s means of grace in His Church are sacramental. They are distinct rituals given to the body to convey grace and truth.

Perhaps a better way of considering these terms is to desire qualification, nuances, and specifications. How does your worldview handle the question of gay marriage? How does your worldview handle the question of assurance? etc. etc. Similarly, “when you use the term sacramental, are you referring to the sacredness of language, art, etc.? or are you referring to the liturgy of the church where we eat and drink Christ’s body by faith?

We still need some level of general vocabulary to convey grand ideas, though we also need to specify and qualify these terms when needed.