Prompt: The Post-Modernist Crisis, painting, HDR, UHD, 64K
In response to the positivist modernist crisis, two alternative epistemologies are proposed that characterized the postmodern age. These are instrumentalism and idealism. Unfortunately, they too fail to provide the needed answer primarily due to the widespread influence of relativism and the absence of an alternative agenda. The main focus of advocates of postmodernism is to denounce modernism and its underlying epistemology. Hiebert’s description is accurate saying that postmodernists “have no truth to affirm and no agenda to solve the growing problems on earth” (p. 68).
Crisis in Theology
Postmodern theologians do not believe in objective knowledge. For them, cultural and historical contexts are the determining factors in shaping human knowledge. There is no such thing as divine revelation. All we have is our search for God.
This kind of theological trend negates the existence of a single correct body of theology. Instead, it embraces plurality in theological reflection. Since historical and sociocultural factors shape theological reflection, salvation is understood as not referring to something of ultimate deliverance that will happen in the future but to liberation and dignity at the moment. In this trend, personal experience is of great value. This paved the way for subjectivism in theology and ultimately to theological relativism.
Hiebert’s explanation of idealism puzzles me. If I understand him correctly, I thought he was saying that this epistemology is one of the alternatives to positivism. However, it appears to me that idealism possessed the same characteristics that positivism has, such as the quest for certainty and the appeal to human reason. It seems that only the name changed but the characteristics remain the same. Or perhaps, both epistemologies share the foregoing in common but they also differ in something fundamental. As to what areas they differ, I am still lost. I hope to find them as I continue reading the book.
Given the idealist pursuit to maintain objectivity in knowledge, for Hiebert, the price is costly. In his mind, this is equivalent to a denial "of the ultimate reality of God and his deeds in history" (p. 59) and an act of deifying the human mind, which will again bring us back to the problem of "theological colonialism" (ibid.).
Crisis in Mission
"An instrumentalist epistemology changes our view of Christian mission," (p. 60) says Hiebert. I didn’t anticipate that such a change means the undermining of the mission.
Replacing positivist epistemology with an instrumentalist epistemology changes the task of mission. All religions must be embraced as different ways of seeking God. As such, the goal of the Christian mission is no longer conversion to Christianity. Proclamation of the gospel has also been replaced by dialogue. Mission in this perspective is primarily learning from other religions and therefore "mission is mission to us rather than to the people we serve" (ibid.). Mission in this perspective turns out to be a ministry to the people only in terms of meeting their "felt needs" (ibid.). The focus is not on the future and the other world but on the present and this world. Salvation in this sense "is defined as justice and liberation from oppressive systems" (ibid.).
Such a shift in epistemology also affects Bible translation and contextualization. The goal is not the accuracy of language by way of literal translation but the search for dynamic equivalence, that is, the spirit and meaning of the word in the context of the people you are aiming to understand. In contextualization, this means that the focus of conversion is no longer a break from the old culture. They should be preserved and given new meanings. The important thing is not the change in form and external practices but the change in one's mind.
As for relating to other religions, the outcome of instrumentalism is religious relativism. The exclusive claim of Christianity can no longer be maintained. Some would even go so far as to argue "that Christianity is the fulfillment of other religions" (p. 62) and that Christ is hidden in all these religions. The goal is to find him, to listen to his voice speaking to us "through the voice of our non-Christian partners because he is already present in the depth of their souls" (ibid.). To insist on maintaining evangelism and conversion as the goals of the mission in the light of this perspective is interpreted "as imperialist and arrogant" (p.63).
Finally, as to the influence of idealism on mission, you can see that Hiebert has nothing good to say about this epistemology. In his mind, it transforms the gospel into "pure abstraction" (ibid.) and is powerless to transform real situations due to its disconnection from sociocultural realities. With this epistemology, communication is impossible which can lead to radicalism and hostility. Contextualization has no place in an idealistic epistemology.
So far, we have seen that in the mind of Hiebert, postmodernity is an offspring of both instrumentalist and idealist epistemologies. Repeating what I already mentioned in my introduction of the postmodern crisis, the basic weakness of postmodernity is its lack of alternatives to address current issues for its primary focus is to oppose modernity and its results. Quoting Laudin, Hiebert agrees that instrumentalism "is an intellectual failure" (p. 66). Together with idealism, for Hiebert both post-positivist epistemologies "collapse under the weight of their internal contradictions" for "both use reason to discredit rationality" and "both absolutize relativism" (ibid.).
In concluding this critique on postmodern epistemologies, Hiebert admits that despite the current status of postmodernity, its increasing influence in Western societies continues to spread. Churches in the West remain unprepared to respond to the challenges of postmodernity. Hiebert ends the second chapter of his book by identifying "one of the great challenges to the Western church", which "is to lay again the theological foundations of the truth of the gospel and to train its members how to proclaim this with humility and love" (p. 67).
The Nature of Public Engagement in Both Positivist and Post-Modernist Epistemologies
This section in this paper is more of a deduction from the logic of the two versions of epistemology under study. I acknowledge my need for further research to strengthen my case. However, due to the limitation of my time, I can’t do such an in-depth reading for now to provide a solid basis for the connection that I want to establish. At this point, let me just lay down my tentative conclusions as to the nature of public engagement under the positivist and post-modernist epistemologies.
I suspect that under the positivist model, the kind of public engagement that we could see is one of domination despite its failure to understand its socio-cultural contexts. Naturally, such a stance would breed hostility. The public space will think that theologians and missiologists who fail to read the sign of the times and yet still insist on pushing their agenda are either too arrogant to learn or completely disconnected from the real world. In a way, though trying their best to engage in public discourse, however, due to their ignorance of the current issues at hand, I could consider this as a form of escapist Christianity.
On the other hand, postmodern theologians and missiologists, particularly the instrumentalist brand seems to be too “real” in their approach at the expense of losing the transcendent character of the message they are aiming to proclaim in public. They are too engrossed with the issues of the time, too identified with the people whom they aim to reach out to at the risk of losing their unique identity.
I think that’s it, that sums up my understanding of the kind of crisis we are in right now caused by both the modernist and the post-modern epistemologies. In the next post, I am going to share some of the prospective precedents in public engagement.