Biblicism as Worldview-ism?

How often have I posted about the dangers of worldview thinking? I can't recall but for a couple of them go here and here. 

What's wrong with the idea of worldview? Agreeing with Peter Leithart whom I quoted here,

I’m ready to delete “worldview” from Christian vocabulary. It’s an especially clunky category for evaluating art. Drama and poetry can’t be reduced to clever ways of communicating ideas, which is what happens in “worldview” analysis. To get the worldview, you extract ideas about man, society, God, and nature from the plays and organize them into a system; you ignore the poetry and the plot and everything that makes the play a play or the poem a poem. You come to the plays with a preconceived framework that makes it impossible to learn anything from them, much less enjoy them. You produce students who are glib know-it-alls, who don’t need to read the plays carefully because they already know what they think.

In short, worldview analysis takes a few important categories (truth, goodness, beauty, etc.), abstracts them from the historical context in which they have understood, and provides a simplistic definition. Any bright high-school student can then slot a thinker, writer, theologian, or artist into a predigested rubric. And, once slotted, analysis is at an end.

But can the Bible itself be reduced to a worldview rubric? On any orthodox understanding of the authority of the Bible as God's revelation to humanity would suggest the answer must be no. While it takes a lot of wisdom to get to fine-grained answers to many specific questions raised by the biblical text, the Bible's place as the norm that norms all subsidiary norms makes its claims unimpeachable. 

Even so, there is a risk that those who make assertions about a biblical norm for this, that or the other thing may confuse their understanding of the biblical text with the meaning of the text and/or extend the application of the biblical text beyond its scope.

For a fuller exploration of this concern go here to read a piece by Alastair Roberts, "Being Biblical™: When the Bible Becomes a Brand." A taste from Alastair's introduction:

Over the past few decades, the temptation to turn Christianity into a brand has proved irresistible not merely among the Joel Osteen’s of the world, but even in many of the strongest and most intellectual holdouts of Reformed and evangelical Christianity. If ideas are to survive at all in a branded world, they must do so as ideologies, as -isms, a neat, pre-packaged, name-it-and-claim-it (or name-it-and-damn-it) system of ideas. 

And some of his words of conclusion:

An abundance of non-Christian influences—ideological, cultural, and material—have been ground into the ‘pure’ sausage of biblical™ worldview. If we simply trust the trademark on the label, we might never closely investigate the ingredients. The alternative is not to eliminate such influences—many of which we have a great deal to gain from—but to be more forthright about what we are taking from them and why, while testing all against Scripture.

There's much more meat in the middle so don't take my word for it. Read the whole thing for yourself.