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.
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.
“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.
