Fin (the end)

I wish to thank those who sporadically visited this blog since June 2005.

I wish to thank those who faithfully perused this blog since June 2005.

I trust it has, at times, provided insight into God's doings in Europe.

I trust it has, at times, provided tools for understanding the European spiritual climate.

I trust it has, at times, provided helpful missiological perspectives.

It was good.

It was grand.

Yes, good things sometimes end.

(The End)

The arrival : Frohe Weihnachten!

In celebration of the birth of Jesus who came into the world to demonstrate the extreme love of God for women, men, girls and boys, I would like to share, albeit a rough translation from the original, a song from a French composer celebrating the arrival of the Prince of Peace.

I worship you God,

Even if you God,

Were irritated with me,

Your wrath was calmed,

Thanks to the Prince of Peace;

You saved me!

The Counselor is marvelous,

The Almighty is my Savior, 

My confidence is in Jesus Christ,

I put my faith in my King,

The Eternal Father in his zeal,

Gives peace eternal;

You console me!

On behalf of the entire Encompass Partners Europe Team, I wish you a very...

Feliz Natal

Frohe Weihnachten

Veselé Vánoce

¡Feliz Navidad

Joyeux Noël

Nollaig Shona

Merry Christmas !!!

Theologically positive?

So, are you theologically positive? Sure that you're sure? Rather are you theologically positivist? 

As summarized last time, August Comte established “positivism”: 

1 There is no place in the public sphere for subjective opinions. Comte preached that human knowledge “could be totally objective and, therefore, true in the absolute sense.” 

2 Human knowledge is without bias, said Comte. That is why, for the Positivist, “knowledge must be accurate in every detail for the whole to be true” and why there cannot be competing theories. All disciplines, all people of all times, in all places must arrive at the same understanding of reality. Human understanding is synonymous with absolute Truth. This is why, positivism is belligerent, “characterized by attacks and counterattacks as each party claims to the have the truth.”

Fortunately that bellicose mindset is only true within the scientific community, right? Evangelical theologians would never, anywhere, by anyone be considered as “belligerent,” right?! 

Ask the man, woman, child or dog in the street what they think of the fact that there are over 36,000 protestant denominations in the world? And of those denominations, the evangelical ones will claim that their denomination’s interpretation of Scripture is the “right” one, i.e. true, or even Truth. 

(By the way, this is what the Roman Church did during the Inquisitions.)

Paul Hiebert states, “A positivist stance on theology postulates a direct (sometimes referred to as one-to-one) correspondence between the Bible and theology—between the messages found in the texts and the interpretation of them in the mind of the theologian, who is seen as an objective observer. It assumes that the careful scholar of the text can understand the meaning intended by the writer accurately and without bias.” 

Hiebert goes on, “Because the Bible is affirmed as true, as it is by conservative theologians [PK: of which I am one], and because theology is seen as an accurate and unbiased reading of the Bible, theology itself becomes absolute truth. Positivist theology claims both biblical authority and theological certitude.” *

A mentor of mine, Tom Julien, once wrote, “we must not attribute certainty to theological inference.”

There are obvious strengths and weaknesses to a positivist theological approach. You can figure out the strengths for yourself or read Hiebert’s book :-) Some of the weaknesses are:

1) It dilutes the absolute authority of Scripture. “Theology based on positivism… does not differentiate sufficiently between divine revelation recorded in Scripture and theology as a human endeavor that seeks to understand that revelation. It often claims final authority for theology, which belongs to Scripture alone” asserts Hiebert.

2) It undermines the priesthood of believers. Hiebert points out that “because theology requires a precise, technical knowledge of the Scriptures and philosophy, it should be done by specialists. The laity are encouraged to study the Bible for themselves, but the orthodoxy of their beliefs is determined by the experts."

3) It leads to unnecessary fratricide (is there ever “necessary” fratricide?). Theological positivism believes that “there can be only one right theology. If there are disagreements, one of the theologies must be false. Because each of us assumes that we are reading the biblical text honestly and without bias, we judge others as mistaken. Disagreements often lead to direct confrontations, accusations of heresy, and schisms in the church. There is little room to work together to understand Scriptures and to live with differences in the body of Christ.”

But if I am not positive that my theology is perfectly true, does this reduce absolute Truth to relative truth? Absolutely not! 

A way forward (critical realism) would humbly say, 
“Scripture is perfect but our understanding of Scripture is imperfect.” 

We see in a glass dimly, but we do see. 
Scripture is absolutely True; in our imperfection we seek to learn from each other and grow in our understanding of that Truth.

Enter the hermeneutical community.

* "Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shifts: Affirming Truth in a Modern/Postmodern World," 19-22. 

Are you Positive?

In my previous two entries I employed the postmodern “hermeneutic of suspicion,” applying it to the space program and medical community. Next time I’ll apply it to the evangelical theological community… just for fun.

Do you remember the title of this Hitchcock film?

Both of the aforementioned communities have a starting point, they assume that their presuppositions and foundations are “right,” by which they justify their pursuits and expenditures. 

As a matter of fact, during the last half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th, the scientific community was dubbed as the final arbiter of Truth. How did that happen?

It all began not with, "I doubt, therefore I might be," but with cogito ergo sum — "I think therefore I am"

Modernist ideology declared REASON as authoritative because REVELATION as interpreted by the Roman Church had become lethal (see entries 13, 23 Jan & 10 May '06). Modernism's promise was: Science working through Institutions will create Utopia on earth for the autonomous Individual. 

If it was all for the autonomous individual why are the men bowed, subservient to the goddess of Progress?

August Comte (1798-1857) affirmed that the “scientific or positivist spirit will, by an invincible law of progress of the human spirit, replace theological beliefs or metaphysical explanations.” 1 

There was therefore no longer place in the public sphere for subjective opinions. Positivists believed that human knowledge “could be totally objective and, therefore, true in the absolute sense” 2 ; it was without bias. 

Positivism presupposed that “humans always act rationally.” 3 

Or as Descartes put it, “it suffices to judge well, in order to do well.” 4

August Comte, the French father of sociology, sought to move toward a “religion of Humanity.”

Modernist Man had vehemently and violently rejected the Roman Church’s interpretation of reality and placed His faith in His own Reason to discover Truth. Human Reason co-opted the Catholic Church’s claim to infallibility. 

Humans will act logically, preached the new Man. 

Progress is inherently good, taught the new priests — university professors. 

The real world is material, announced the new apostles — the scientists.

Thus, there was great optimism at end of the 19th century. The  20th century was to be a century of peace, the crown of all centuries where technology, transportation, medicine, progressive understanding of history would end human strife. 

“There will be war no more!” was the mantra. Humans would no longer exploit other humans. The 20th would be the century of elevated human reason. Reason, not revelation, would finally rule. And it did. 

Friedrich Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, declared, “God is dead.” Nietzsche’s superMan was a new kind of creator. Zarathustra himself warned, “but all creators are harsh.” 6

This is the Superman that was expected at the beginning of the 20th century 

This is the superman, in line with Nietzsche, that actually showed up

The reign of Human Reason caused the greatest collective bloodbath in the history of mankind. The Modernist superMen — Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Tito — led by Human Reason (these men clearly rejected religion and God) wielded ideology, technology, transportation, medicine, and a progressive understanding of history to create highly efficient means of killing other men before they could die from the diseases that modern medicine could not heal.

Donald Shriver points out that from the 16^th to the 19^th centuries, 34 million people were killed in wars. Yet in just one century — the 20^th “Century of Peace” — 107,800 million people were killed in warfare. 7 

Alexandre Solzhenitsyn summarized: “The most optimistic century ended as the most cannibalistic.”

Modernist Secular Man's evil geometrically surpassed that of religious men

CONCLUSION 

Believers need to acknowledge crimes done in the name of Christ. People really were tortured and killed in the name of Christ. Jesus predicted that this would be done by men who “neither knew the Father nor me” (John 16:2-3). 

But the Secular & Scientific Institutions that promulgated Humanism & Modernism are also guilty of the same crimes (on a greater scale) as the Church that they were allegedly rescuing people from: unjustly claiming to be the spokesmen for Truth, perpetuating itself at other’s expense, guilty of atrocities such as experiments done on human beings, torture, rape and mass murder. 

QUESTIONS

If the Roman Church and guilty believers should acknowledge their crimes, should not Modernist Man do the same? 

If Man always acts logically and people today reject the Church because of the Crusades and the Inquisitions, should they not also reject Science, technology, Secularism and Humanism  which are culpable in the extreme? 

In light of these things, how is Modernist Secular Man more trustworthy than pre-Modern Religious man?

Enter Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault… the postmodernists.

1 translated from «La pratique de la Philosophie de A à Z», 355.

2 Paul Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, 98.

3 Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research, 49. 

4 René Descartes, Discours de la méthode, 50.

5 Paul Hiebert, Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shifts, 3, 11.

6 Friedrich Nietzsche, Ainsi parlait Zarathoustra, 116-117.

7 Donald W. Shriver, Jr. An Ethic for Enemies: Forgiveness in Politics, 65.