Prompt: The Positivist-Modernist Crisis, painting, HDR, UHD, 64K
Yesterday, I introduced the theme for my research paper on Church Planting and Church Growth, which is Public Engagement as Mission. A pastor friend after reading my post last night shared this question:
How should we do missions in an anticolonial, postmodern era characterized by religious relativism and accusations of Christian imperialism?
In his mind, the above question is so important, and according to him, there is really a need to respond to this question.
Giving my tentative answer to his question, I told him that this is how Paul G. Hiebert, a leading missiological anthropologist responded to that question:
So far, Paul G. Hiebert’s response is to change both the positivist-modernist model of epistemology as well as the instrumentalist-idealist epistemologies that characterized the postmodern time into a critical realist epistemology which is more suitable in a globalist age.
As I said, that’s my tentative response. I still need to explore the alternative provided by Reformed epistemology on this missiological issue.
In this article, I just want to share with you the crisis in mission brought about by the positivist theory of knowledge.
The Crisis in Mission is an Epistemological Crisis
Among the seven books in my bibliography, Paul G. Hiebert’s book is the most difficult, but most helpful when it comes to identifying the current crisis in Christian mission in the epistemological sense.
At the outset, Paul G. Hiebert gave us the historical background of how positivism influenced both theology and missions. He began by saying that before the 17th century, many theologians saw their discipline as science in the old sense of the word. However, after the 17th century, the term had a distinct meaning "equated with 'positive' knowledge about the natural world based on empirical observation" (Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shifts: Affirming Truth in a Modern/Postmodern World, 1999, p. 17). In this restricted sense, theology with its inherent character to include reality beyond and above nature can no longer be called a science. Nevertheless, Rudolf Bultmann attempted to retain the label through his efforts "to make theology fit the modern science" (ibid.). Whether he has been successful or not in this project is beyond the scope of this paper. It is enough to note that such a trend made modern science the primary influence in setting the world's agenda. As such, we should not wonder that theologians and missionaries of the 19th and 20th centuries adopted positivism, the epistemological foundations of modernity.
Crisis in Theology
One distinctive characteristic of positivist theology in the mind of Hiebert is the claim to certainty and he equates it with the claim to "absolute truth" (p. 19). This is exactly the kind of theology that he decided to leave. Nevertheless, despite the shortcomings of positivist theology, Hiebert identified a few examples of its strengths such as a high view of theology, a high view of truth and absolutes and thereby rejects relativism, and the basic presupposition of the unity of mankind and human reason.
The weaknesses of positivism that contributed to the crisis both in modern theology and missions are manifold. This kind of epistemology fails to distinguish the difference between divine revelation recorded in the Bible and theological formulation. For Hiebert, positivist theologians tend to equate the two, and it's dangerous for it leaves no room for mystery and is in danger of ignoring human limitation and worshipping the human mind.
Another problem with positivist theology is its inclination to ignore the unfolding nature of divine truth, "the problems of everyday human life"(p. 21), and does not lead to passion in mission. Moreover, due to its preoccupation to attain objective knowledge, it tends to be dry and leaves no room for emotion and morality.
Furthermore, positivism’s excessive emphasis on the individual, which is one of the primary characteristics of modernity leads to an idea of truth that becomes a personal matter. Here, we see an early seed sown that resulted later in the withdrawal of theological truth away from the public space. This is the exact opposite of Hiebert’s conviction that theological truth must be proclaimed as public truth (p. 104).
Still, another setback caused by the positivist mentality is related to the idea of progress. Here, the Kingdom of God has been equated with humanistic utopia. The focus of theology shifted from God to humanistic activities.
Finally, positivist theology due to its stance of achieving the correct theology inevitably leads to conflicts and controversies.
Crisis in Modern Mission
One of the setbacks of positivism in the Christian mission is related to the perceived Western intellectual superiority. Consequently, Christianity's goal has been interpreted as similar to Westernization, modernity, and colonialism. This affected people’s view of the gospel and the ministry of the church. The gospel has been confined as a matter of intellectual affirmation of a certain body of doctrine. Furthermore, the church has struggled for so long to resolve the tension between evangelism and social transformation. Realizing this, we are no longer surprised why for so long the witness of the church has not been so evident when it comes to the public arena. It is good that James F. Engel and William A. Dyrness informed us that such tension has already been resolved due to the holistic understanding of the character of the kingdom of God (Changing the Mind of Missions: Where Have We Gone Wrong? 2000).
Closely related to the perceived superiority is a positivist mission outlook that "rejects all other religions as false" (p. 28). Based on this perspective, none of the practices in the old religion can be utilized as part of indigenous expressions. Positivism, the epistemic foundation of modern mission tends to be hostile and combative in its approach to indigenous cultures. As such, modern missionaries are perceived as “imperialist and arrogant” (Hiebert, p. 63) and Christianity has been interpreted as a Western project and a tool during the colonial era.
Internal and External Attacks Against Positivism
Except for the above critical evaluation of positivism, Hiebert added both internal and external attacks against this epistemology. By internal attack, I mean within science itself and I will skip explaining it for I judge it to be too abstract. However, it is enough to say that this type of attack has been raised by sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, and historians questioning the claim to the objectivity of knowledge. In light of such criticism, Hiebert concluded that what we need now is a new and humbler form of realism.
Moreover, as for external criticisms, positivism has been severely discredited due to the failure of the modernist project. Instead of experiencing the promised utopia, what humanity experienced in the 20th century was a frightening nightmare. Quoting Pauline Rosenau, Hiebert writes:
Modernity entered history as a progressive force promising to liberate humankind from ignorance and irrationality, but one can readily wonder whether that promise has been sustained. As we in the West approach the end of the twentieth century, the 'modern' record - world wars, the rise of Nazism, concentration camps . . . genocide, worldwide depression, Hiroshima . . . and a widening gap between rich and poor - makes any belief in the idea of progress or faith in the future seem questionable (p. 34).
The above consequence is a result of the dominance of positivist mentality, which according to Hiebert has been charged with imperialist attitude and intellectual colonialism, amoral character due to its focus on description and taking prescription for granted, and intellectual ethnocentrism.