Page 1: In the footnote, Max quotes James Sire for a definition of worldview: "a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the

heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being." This is a useful definition that includes the crucial element of narrative, presupposition, and basic constitution of the world. The categories of Sacred and Secular in page 2 may be a bit historically uninformed. Charles Taylor has convincingly argued that the very notion of the secular is only made possible through Christianity, in particular through the reformation (see A Secular Age): the Greek religion did not provide for us a resource to conceive of the world as independent from God. The evangelical Protestantism, which is the context Max is arguing from as a background, is a parallel development with secularism. In this sense, what Max is arguing is actually to return to the earlier notion of Christianity. Whether or not this is ultimately the right thing to do, it seems like a promising project that many are undertaking. The treatment of Irenaeus is not bad. I like the following in particular: "a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being." This is set against the worldview of Gnosticism, which Max ultimately declares to be inadequate. The following is a notable treatment of Gnosticism, from page 10: Love has no place in the Gnostic understanding of creation. Love is completely absent from any interaction that takes place between the archons or lesser deities and mankind. It is not surprising that Gnostic followers had such a poor understanding of creation and had no problem separating the actions committed in the flesh with what takes place in their mind. The Gnostics separated or compartmentalized what was committed in the flesh (material world) as having no meaning or consequence to the inner light or secret revelation that occurred in the mind. I like how Max connects the inability of Gnostics to have a place for love with its separation of flesh and mind. I have not seen this connection made often, and it is a helpful one in terms of thinking about the meaning of love and the failure of all system of thinking that privilege the place of the mind over the body. Maxs conclusion is a helpful way to summarize the contribution of Irenaeus, and and the failure of Gnosticism. He locates the contribution at the doctrine of Gods sovereignty: When Christians fail to understand that God is sovereign over everything, they begin to operate with a worldview that compartmentalizes their life in to sacred or secular categories. Their thoughts, desires, and actions quickly begin to reflect the worldly spirit of the age rather than a total submission to the Sovereign King. Indeed, this conclusion coheres with the Jewish idea of monotheism: the God who lords over

history is ultimately the only One who can redeem his people. This notion of God, many scholars have observe, is what allows the Jews to preserve themselves while mostl other ancient civilizations perished.