Prompt: Public Engagement and Critical Realism, HDR, UHD, 64K
This is the concluding piece in my series of articles that composed the research paper I made from July 3 to 31. The title of the paper is Public Engagement as Mission. After describing the crisis in the theory of knowledge both in the modern and the postmodern era, I attempted to explore some suggested models for public engagement. These models are taken from Christian Higher Education and from the missiological studies of David Bosch.
Since this is the closing article, I think it is just appropriate to give you an overview of what I covered so far:
I broke down the 29-page paper with a total of 9,400 words into seven separate articles. Of course, I made a few revisions suitable for a blog just like what I am doing now. I cannot write academically in the usual way on a social media platform that is intended for public engagement.
Anyhow, back to my theme. After enumerating several motifs from Bosch’s concepts of comprehensive salvation and mission as liberation, I am now returning my attention to the epistemological alternative as suggested by Paul G. Hiebert. This time, we will take a look at critical realism to determine if this epistemology can provide us with a more concrete precedent for public engagement.
General Overview of Critical Realism
Hiebert acknowledged both instrumentalism and idealism, the underlying epistemologies of postmodernity as legitimate responses to the perceived arrogance caused by positivism. However, for him, the postmodern alternatives are worse than the problem they want to replace for “they have no truth to affirm and no agenda to solve the growing problems on earth (Missiological Implications, p. 68). Nevertheless, Hiebert found the "firm ground" he is looking for in critical realism. Instead of being reactive, this epistemology is proactive, more humble, sensitive, and more suitable for addressing the issues in the era of globalization.
In critical realism, both the roles of objectivity and subjectivity are affirmed. As such, Bosch claims that this epistemology serves as "a middle ground" between positivism and instrumentalism. Moreover, critical realism has a notion of rationality that is different from the notions of both the positivist and the postmodern. The keywords in this epistemology are "realistic" and "critical". The other term for this borrowing from Charles Peirce is "critical common sensism" (p. 69). This epistemology offers a third way of looking at symbols and words that includes three elements: the sign as spoken or written words, a mental idea or image of the signified, and the reality itself.
The above description of critical realism is more of a general overview. Hiebert explained them in detail, which I cannot cover due to the limitation of this paper. Before relating critical realism to Christianity and mission, I want to conclude this section by elaborating more on the second element in what Hiebert called the "triadic nature of signs" (p. 71) and in relating critical realism to globalism.
In critical realism, there are four levels of mental construction. In the first level, we can find the formulation of concepts based on our experiences of reality. In the second level, we can see the theories that provide the proposed answers to the fundamental questions that the scientist is asking. In the third level where we can locate the “paradigms,” the knowledge systems that have been labeled with different names. Thomas Kuhn is the one who introduced the specialized use of the term 'paradigm" to the scientific community. Other words include "research traditions", "belief systems" and "cognitive systems". Hiebert prefers to use "knowledge systems". The fourth level is where you can observe someone’s worldview. This term reminds me of Herman Bavinck's analysis (Philosophy of Revelation, 1909) which serves as a word to replace "religion" due to its bad reputation and the unacceptability of its knowledge claims in the modern era.
Critical Realism and Globalism
Hiebert's introduction of critical realism as the most appropriate epistemology in the emerging globalism in our time puzzles me not because I suspect the rationality of the proposal, but because of the way he compares globalism to the two previous paradigms.
Reviewing what Hiebert said about positivism, he describes it as the underlying epistemology of modernism. As for postmodernity, he gave us two alternatives, instrumentalism and idealism. And then, in introducing critical realism, his proposed direction, he categorically identified this epistemology as associated with globalism.
What I find puzzling is the comparison of globalism to modernity and postmodernity. It appears that there is a logical inconsistency in this type of reasoning. On what intellectual basis can Hiebert justify such a comparison?
From my perspective, this is like comparing apples to oranges. Globalism is more of a space description while the term "modern" describes time. If this is the case, globalism must be placed under the category of either modern or postmodern. If my critique is valid, then even critical realism must be placed under the postmodern alternative and not under globalism.
Critical Realism and Missions
This topic is under discussion on the relationship between critical realism and Christianity. I also intentionally left out Hiebert’s elaboration on the correlation of critical realism to theology and science.
Adopting critical realism as a new epistemology in globalization calls for a re-examination of mission history. Both the colonial and anti-colonial perspectives serve their purposes in their time. Reinterpreting mission history from a global perspective helps us see both the good and the bad in the modern mission movement. Globalization changes both how we see and do missions.
Naive realists referring to the positivist modernist model with their emphasis on objective truth and taking contexts for granted made the accuracy of gospel proclamation the primary thing ending up attacking other religions. As such, they are considered destroyers of indigenous cultures and promoters of Western Christianity.
Critical realists on the other hand though they also affirm objectivity, and yet they are sensitive to the surrounding cultures of the people they aim to reach out to. Though they don't understand the local expressions of the people's faith, they do respect them. In the process of conversion, truths, and practices inherent in people's culture are not rejected but can be assimilated into the new way of life provided they are given new meanings.
Finally, both spiritual needs and felt needs are addressed in critical realism. The whole gospel is addressing the total needs of man in their overall contexts that include socio-political and economic realities. This would imply Christian engagement in the public space. Overall, this would mean doing a mission that addresses issues of liberation and justice as well as man's ultimate need for deliverance from the power of sin both in time and in eternity.
Critical realism has implications too in the field of contextualization. Unlike in the past when positivist missionaries responded to other cultures by displacing them, this new epistemic stance recognized both the beauty of creation and the impact of sin on human culture. Taking culture as part of human creativity and because men and women are created in the divine image, culture, therefore, must be affirmed. On the other hand, since sin manifests not only as personal and individual but also in systemic forms, critique is, therefore, necessary.
The response of critical realists to other religions also differs from the positivist, idealist, and instrumentalist. Both the positivist and idealist are combative in their approach. Instrumentalists on the other hand are looking for areas of dialogue and consensus. In the case of critical realism, its advocates affirm their "common humanity with all people" (p. 114). Having this kind of attitude, they "respect and love all people as fully human" just like them (ibid.).
Affirming such a common humanity does not mean that difficulty in communication can easily be resolved. Those who study cultural anthropology realized that the task of communication isn't easy. Here's how Hiebert describes that difficulty:
The more we study cultural differences, the more we realize how difficult true cross-cultural communication is, and how important it is to study the people's culture and religion to communicate and build relationships of love and trust with them (p. 115).
For Hiebert, bridging the above difficulty is the proper place for "interreligious dialogue" (ibid.).
In the mind of Hiebert, critical realism is the epistemology that is most appropriate for addressing the challenges of globalization. This epistemic stance changes the way we do theology and mission and if we will view public engagement as part of mission, that too has to change.
Let me conclude this discussion on critical realism as a potential epistemological basis in public engagement with a closing quote from the last page of the book:
. . . it is clear that we cannot and do not want to go back to a positivist, colonial approach to missions. Nor can we take a postmodern approach that sees all religions as humans search for God and rejects the Christian mission as calling people to faith in Jesus Christ. . . .In mission, our central task is not to communicate s message but to introduce people to that person, Jesus Christ (p. 116).
Conclusion
Though it would appear that I am advocating critical realism as an alternative epistemology in the postmodern globalist era in this article, this is due to the limitation of my time to explore other options. If I have the chance, I actually want to add insights from two schools on how they see the current crisis in the theory of knowledge. I am referring to the school of Reformed epistemology as promoted by Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff and the school of transcendental presuppositional apologetics as advanced by Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen. However, I have to accept such a limitation, for if not, I think I will never be able to meet the deadline for the submission of my papers.
Thanks for reading!
Grace and peace!
References:
Bosch, David J. 2000. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. New York: Orbis Books.
Engel, James F. & William A. Dyrness. 2000. Changing the Mind of Missions: Where Have We Gone Wrong? Illinois: InterVarsity Press.
Hiebert, Paul G. 1999. Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shifts: Affirming Truth in a Modern/Postmodern World. PA: Trinity Press International.