Prompt: globalization and technology, by Thomas Kinkade

Source

Finally, I am done with the writing project I started last 03 of July. Tomorrow will be the deadline. After taking a rest for five hours, I resumed writing the final article on Paul G. Hiebert's book. This time my topic is Critical Realism and Christianity and I want to divide it following Hiebert's outline:

• Critical Realism and Theology

• Theology and Science, and

• Critical Realism and Missions

Critical Realism and Theology

We will see the difference between a theology using critical realism as its epistemology from a theology based on positivist and postmodern epistemologies in four areas:

Scriptures and Theology

A critical realist distinguishes between theology and Scripture. The Bible is accepted as divine revelation and the final source of authority of faith and practice. It also serves as the criterion to evaluate theological truth.

Theology on the other hand is viewed as a human interpretation of divine revelation. It provides us with knowledge based on signs and symbols such as spoken or written words, but it should not be confused as equivalent to revelation. It is our limited and finite expression of something infinite and mysterious to the human mind.

Theology in Context

Contrary to the dominance of positivist epistemology during the colonial era that focused on biblical text and the post-positivist epistemologies in the anti-colonial era that emphasized context, critical realists affirm both objectivity and subjectivity. By maintaining that theology is rooted in the Bible, the objectivity of theology has been retained. Nevertheless, the subjectivity in the theological formulation is acknowledged due to the roles of sense perceptions, language, the hermeneutical process, personal interests, the influence of culture, the community, and the specific historical contexts in which we live (p. 99).

Considering the contextual nature of theology, plurality and diversity have their rightful place. This is different from the theological relativism of post-positivist epistemologies for this kind of plurality and diversity still "affirms the central doctrines of the gospel that define true Christianity - namely, the historicity of Christ's" person and works (pp. 100-101).

Hermeneutical Communities

The third area where we can see the difference between critical realism from both the modernist and the post-modernist epistemologies is in the concept of hermeneutical communities. The role of the Holy Spirit and the priesthood of all believers is affirmed. As such, theological reflection must be done in the community. This will safeguard us from the privatization of faith and misinterpretation of the biblical text. Though the role of the community is significant, this doesn't mean that leadership and specialized studies are irrelevant. The decision in hermeneutical communities is not by majority rule. These communities are informed by the insights of specialists in different fields like exegetical studies and biblical theology.

Disagreements

Finally, in critical realism, disagreements are resolved not by either attacking each others' perspectives as heretical or by taking them for granted. Instead, tensions are resolved by going back to the sacred text to test the truthfulness of a specific point of view.

Theology and Science

When it comes to integration between theology and science, a critical realist is not confident that such an intellectual project can be achieved. It is sufficient enough to accept the validity of all knowledge systems not as antagonistic against each other but as complementary.

The starting point would be a rejection of the separation between theology and science. Both operate with their basic presuppositions. They both assume the existence of the real world and the ability of the human mind. They differ because they ask different questions and use different methodologies. I am not sure how Hiebert arrives at his conclusion based on this analysis. For him, this would mean that Christians "must proclaim theological truth as public truth" (p. 104).

Critical Realism and Missions

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.

Evangelism, Conversion, and Discipleship

Naive realists 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 addressed the total needs of man in their overall contexts that include socio-political and economic realities. 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 Contextualization

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 in view of the fact that 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.

Hiebert identifies four stages in critical contextualization:

• The whole body of Christ must realize the need to see all aspects of life biblically.

• "The church must study the traditional cultural ways" and "must seek to understand them as the" native people see them (p. 112).

• The Bible must be consulted concerning the specific traditional issues at hand, and

• The newly converted people must evaluate their culture based on the outcome of their studies of the biblical text.

Toward a Global Theology and Church

Critical realists respond to theological pluralism in the following ways:

• With the recognition that Christians with diverse cultures will interpret biblical texts differently, critical realists accept this as a part of reality in doing a mission. Calling for biblical response to the caste system, polygamy, and witchcraft considering the Indian context and the issues of poverty and oppression in the context of Latin America are concrete examples that influence biblical interpretation.

• The acceptance of critical realists of the complementarity of theologies should not be interpreted as a wholesale acceptance of contradiction in theology.

• A international hermeneutical community must be composed of representatives from different nations and cultures to avoid cultural biases in biblical interpretation.

Christianity and Non-Christian Religions

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.).

For 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. Let me end this article with a closing quote from the last 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).

This article ends my writing project for the Church Planting and Church Growth course. The final stage will be an integration of all that I have written for the last 30 days. I hope I can complete it by tomorrow.

Grace and peace!

Reference:

Hiebert, Paul G. 1999. Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shifts: Affirming Truth in a Modern/Postmodern World. PA: Trinity Press International.