Through The River: Understanding Your Assumptions About Truth by Jon & Mindy Hirst

So there have been some culture wars these past few decades here in the West. Among the many skirmishes, one of the most enduring pitched battles has been over epistemology – as Pontius Pilate famously asked, “What is truth?”

Postmodernists like myself tend to draw attention to the contingency, and situated-ness of truth. To call a truth ‘timeless’ seems like an insult to its vitality. Modernists tend to favor truth they can absolutize, a rigid and uncompromising set of morals and values that frame the foundation of existence – to do otherwise feels like slippery relativism. This conversation often ends in a stalemate of inflexible systems wherein each side loses and neither system is closer to grasping truth. Is there a way out of the impasse?

Biblica’s Through the River, a new book by Jon and Mindy Hirst (with Dr. Paul Hiebert), encourages us to examine our assumptions about truth and how those assumptions affect our relationship to the world at large.  In so doing, the Hirsts offer a new perspective on truth that allows us not only to better understand how we view truth but how we might become better equipped to communicate truth in a combative culture. Their claim is that “our ability to struggle through the concept of truth in today’s world is crucial to determining our success in the Christian life, our relationships and our kingdom work.”

Through the River is a challenging and fascinating book told allegorically, taking the reader on a journey through River Town, weaving a memorable tale on how people can live in close proximity while having radically contrasting views. River Town’s three communities live and act so differently because each group is using a distinct set of assumptions about truth (truth lenses).

In short, Through the River pulls off a mean feat: It offers a view of truth that seeks to solve the compatibility issues between worldviews and capitalizes on their strengths in such a way that each becomes better without becoming the same. Readers might not all agree with the attempted integration, but you will be the better for having read it. You just might beat your culture war swords into plowshares.

Jon and Mindy Hirst are the co-founders of Generous Mind, a think tank designed to help people make their thoughts count. The late Paul G. Hiebert (1932–2007) was Distinguished Professor of Mission and Anthropology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and previously taught at Fuller Theological Seminary. Through the River is Jon and Mindy’s unique approach to Dr. Hiebert’s important and groundbreaking studies in truth.

1. mhasty

   “Your truth is what you make it.” has never been more fleshed out than it is in modern culture. People all around the world and across the street come to the table with varying views on truth. Some believe truth is non-existent or that truth is created by one’s own personal belief system. Some believe that truth is absolute and unchanging that it can be directly proven by facts and hard evidence. Some base truth on experience and ideas.

   In their book Through the River, by John and Mindy Hirst – with Dr. Paul Hiebert, attempt to paint a picture of the reader of three main truth lenses (positivism-instrumentalism-critical realism) through the example of a place called River Town. In River Town there are three different types of villagers and each village represents a different truth lens.

   The readers give a fair and objective explanation of the three truth lenses. Positivism being the more extreme conservative view in which truth is absolute; and Instrumentalism being the extreme liberal view in which truth is fluid and changeable. The authors tend to lean a bit toward critical realism, a combination of positivism and instrumentalism.

   The book is very practical and well written. It takes some large ideas by the late Dr. Paul Hiebert and puts them in a format that is easy to understand and dig through for every reader. I hope it’s published again later by a larger company. This book deserves the press.

   http://throughtheriverbook.com

   http://thegreatrescue.blogspot.com/2009/10/through-river-book-review.html

   Oct 21st, 2009

2. dkam136

   When Jon and Mindy Hirst noted in their preface of Through the River: Understanding Your Assumptions about Truth (with the late Dr. Paul Hiebert, author of books like Transforming Worldviews: An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change) that they were taking Dr. Heibert’s books “to the masses,” it reminded me of the preface to Ortberg’s The Life You’ve Always Wanted in which he had considered entitling his book “Willard for Dummies. ” When I went back and read The Divine Conspiracy and The Spirit of the Disciplines by Willard, I could see what Ortberg meant. There will always be something lost when we try to bring a complex subject into simpler terms using analogy and less technical vocabulary, but there can also be a freshness and newness involved in such endeavors.

   In the case of the Hirst’s, it is most definitely the latter. They bring a freshness to the philosophical underpinnings of epistemology without getting bogged down in the philosophical language. To provide easier understanding of positivism, instrumentalism, and critical realism, they use a river analogy of rock dwellers (positivists), island dwellers (instrumentalists), and valley dwellers (critical realism). Although they sometimes make the three seem too exclusive, they do a good job of creating examples and definitions of all three “philosophical types.”

   One criticism of the early chapters, however, is their historical jump from Plato to Copernicus (on pages 28-30). I would have liked to have seen at least one Medieval philosopher in their list. The fact that they mention no one from this time period, and skip directly to the Western Enlightenment upholds the already typical stereotype that nothing good happened in those “dark ages” from Constantine to Copernicus (approximately a thousand years, give or take a few hundred). This also seems to run counter to the globalist perspective the seem to be advocating in this book.

   The Hirsts’s also oversimplify the move from positivism to instrumentalist and finally to critical realism. The jumps are not as nice and pretty as they sometimes make it out to be (although they do note this in their book). The most worrisome thing to me is the idea the way they make “critical realists” out to be the best thing since sliced bread, while providing only straw-men (or straw-women for those who want equal work for equal pay) of positivists and instrumentalists. I understand they have to do this to make their conclusions in the book, but the humbleness they talk about the critical realist having often seems overshadowed the critical realist being “better” than positivists or instrumentalists. I am not sure such qualifications help us in our inter-generational debates, nor do I think it is humble to think of critical realism as the “best” way to think about truth.

   The premise of the book is quite good, but the premise seems to lack sub-concepts that are really worth developing in a book of this length. I often felt the same ideas were repeated five or six times when they did not need to be. The book could easily have been cut in half and made the same points just as well. A book of this length requires more than an surface analysis of three philosophical ways of thought coupled with spiritual insights, but that may just be the academic in me talking.

   My criticisms aside, the book does a good job of introducing philosophy in a non-technical way to the layperson. I highly recommend it to any one who is having troubles with family or friends and they don’t have the language yet to engage holistically with those people. This book is definitely written with positivists in mind, and seems to have in its purpose a call for positivists to rethink their positions and move “through the river.” As one who has already moved through much of the river, the book did not really give me anything fundamentally “new” to chew on (but then again, new is overrated). It did, however, give me a good book to recommend to family and friends who want to learn the beginnings of philosophy and its relation to a holistic approach to God.

   Danny Kam
   dkam136 (at) gmail (dot) com
   Community of the Risen
   http://dkam136.com

   Oct 27th, 2009

3. Chris Enstad

   I like the way people like Jon and Mindy Hurst work. I appreciate people who can take complicated and misused or abused concepts and place them in a context in which they might be rationally considered, discussed, and enacted. The Hurst’s have done this with the hot-button concept of truth in their book Through the River. From Pilate’s question to the arrested Jesus, “What is truth?” to our post-modern contemporary skirmishes between individuals and denominations, truth is a concept that often resists the close scrutiny we assume we must have all given it at some point in our lives. The Hurst’s have come along with the analogy of River Town and the three populations that represent three distinct ways of looking at the truth. Assumptions that we make about ourselves and others views are the basis for many of the tensions that arise between people. The Hurst’s ability to describe the philosophical areas of Positivism, Instrumentalism, and Critical Realism are a great launching point for serious communities to learn to engage each other with love to truly advance the cause of Christ.

   I am, of course, concerned that those who most NEED this book will not be the ones who READ this book but one can always pray, right?

   Nov 5th, 2009

4. rckhff

   Through the River was written to popularize the work of Paul Hiebert. Having never read any of Hiebert’s work, I am unqualified to judge whether they were successful in that goal. The book was very accessible.

   Through the River takes a look at the subject of truth – what we mean by it and how we arrive at it. Through lots of analogies and stories, the Hirst’s introduce the reader to three different epistemologies – or truth lenses, as they call them. They bring the reader to River Town, in order to tell the story of the Rock Dwellers, the Island Dwellers and the Valley Dwellers. These represent the truth lenses of positivism, instrumentalism, and critical realism.

   This book frustrated me more often than not. In order to build up a case for critical realism, I felt the authors to often assumed things about the other two truth lenses that don’t really follow from the epistemologies themselves. For example, the Hirst’s seem to think that part of what it means to be a positivist is that you must be more concerned with the truth than with loving others. Now, I have no doubt that there are plenty of people in the world who do this, but that’s not something that positivism entails. I would say similar things about their presentation of instrumentalism.

   What this book does well is describe 3 different _attitudes_ people can have towards truth. Over and over they talk about those who favor truth at the expense of relationships, those who favor relationships at the expense of truth, and those who try to balance truth and relationships. This is great, but where the authors go wrong is in suggesting that these groups correspond to positivism, instrumentalism, and critical realism (respectively).

   Overall, I didn’t think this was a great book and I probably wouldn’t recommend it to others. A much better book on this subject was Esther Meek’s Longing to Know. It is very readable and does a much better job at exploring the nature of truth and knowledge.

   Nov 5th, 2009

5. Phule77

   “Through the River” (by John and Mindy Hirst, Authentic books, 2009) is a clear attempt by the authors to disseminate the work of another author into a more understandable fashion for the layman. The book concerns itself with the perspectives that we hold (perhaps unknowingly) as Westerners that we bring into witnessing and missions which may make it very difficult for us to represent Christ accurately to others, because we’re also communicating culture and world view, and may not realize how they are different than those that we’re attempting to reach.

   The dust jacket states that the authors are two Communications majors, one with a minor in sociology, but the entire book is written in terms of sociologists talking about philosophy. It’s unclear how much of this depends entirely on the original text, (“Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shifts: Affirming Truth in a Modern/Postmodern World”, by Dr. Paul Hiebert.), but it’s possible that a fair amount of the book is merely a translation with attached metaphors, rather than an entirely original work. This is not to indicate false intent, but rather than when one is engaged in translation, there is less thought given to whether what one is translating is accurate.

   The essentially argument of the book is that there are three ways of looking at the world. If this already sounds like far too much of a simplification to you, then perhaps you, like I, am not the intended audience of this book.

   The authors sum up all of Western History and Philosophy in three people…Plato, Copernicus, and Einstein, and they somehow lay the postmodernist movement at Einstein’s feet, even though he brought us Relativity, not Relativism.

   So essentially, all Westerners approach the world either through the mindset of Modernity (emphasized in Positivism), Post-Modernism (emphasized in Instrumentalism) or the apparently more preferable Critical Realism.

   The essential problem here being that, saying Modernity is precisely equal to Empiricism and Positivism, and Postmodern thought can be accurately summed up in Instrumentalism, is a lot like saying that all Christians are Baptists. It’s a flavor, not the whole body of the thing. Which automatically leaves me suspicious.

   Our culture has moved through a whole range of movements over the last two thousand years…Christendom, Traditionalism, Enlightenment, Romanticism, Modernism, and Postmodernism. Probably with flavors in between. Additionally, the Postmodernist movement itself began in the late 1800’s, but is identified within this book as only starting in the later portion of the 20th century, begging the question of what the historical reference point is for the authors.

   Or, more essentially, making it clear that the authors did not question their own frame of reference exceedingly before engaging with the project.

   Postmodernism is written off as Relativism; i.e., people who don’t believe that anything is necessarily true, because they cannot believe the perspectives of the people they encounter, and so everything is questionable.

   But while Relativists and Instrumentalists are, in fact, born out of Post Modernism, they are not the whole animal, and should not be labeled as such. Many of the prominent Post Modern thinkers believe in an incredible range of absolutes, but believe that we are hampered in our ability to communicate those absolutes accurately to each other, and so we are limited in what we can communicate. If this appears to be the same thing, then it’s entirely possible that my own perspective makes the entire thing appear very differently than it was intended.

   The authors make frequent use of the term “truth lense” where others might state “perspective” or “world view”, as truth lense lends itself to the metaphor of looking through something more immediately than the others, to which that idea is inherent. The idea that it is necessary to state this a new way and then use the new term repeatedly through the book only emphasizes to me that perhaps I am not the intended audience of this book.

   The other term that the book makes great use of is “Critical Realism”, which the authors state is a way of knowing that some things are true, but that other things are only perceivable, so one is always learning more about it. Wikipedia notes that “…the meaning of the theory is dependent on the user’s pre-interpretation of words like ‘perceive’, ‘reality’ etc. such that in the longstanding debate between representational (indirect) and naive (direct) realists each side will always claim that the other has not understood their position. Thus, readers of this account must ask what the writer(s) believe(s) their words to mean. “

   What the authors point to as a more precise way of seeing the world is what many other people would just call another variation on Postmodern thinking, i.e., we know that some things are true, but we do not believe that we completely perceive all of the true things, and so we will keep learning and developing.

   Strangely, while the first half of the book is set up explaining these things, it does so in a completely secular way, devoid of any reference to sin or human nature, but then spends the second half of the book applying these “truth lenses” to a variety of religious experiences, such as faith and love. Over and over, the book sets out to explain things in a manner in which the authors appear to be reinventing history, or explaining on subset of thought (philosophy, communications) from a completely different, perhaps sociological viewpoint. However, since my wife is a sociologist, and I keep asking her about these things and getting negative responses, that too appears cloudy.

   I suspect that for people coming at the idea of modernism and postmodernism, this book is an excellent introductory primer, as it does set things into very basic subsets, and uses story pictures to establish a lot of what the authors are talking about…people living in different geographic areas around a river, and how they came to live there, and how this shapes their ability to deal with each other. But it’s in such a limited, and at times holistically incorrect manner, that it can only be entirely accepted, even charitably, by those with little education in the worldviews of the world in which we live.

   The reading level is such that this is probably still a college level book, or perhaps HS AP. I suppose at best, to be generous, I can only say that as with all books, you need to take what you read here with a grain of salt. My engagement with the book mostly resulted in aggravation and dissatisfaction, but hopefully other readers will find it to be more useful.

   Nov 6th, 2009

6. SGill4613

   Jesus said: “For this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

   Pilate then asked; “What is truth?” (John 18:37b-38a)

   Certainly the search for truth is one which cannot be undertaken lightly. The book Through the River: Understanding your Assumptions about Truth written by Jon & Mindy Hirst with Dr. Paul Hiebert attempts to help those in the postmodern world to do so by taking Dr. Hiebert’s thoughts on truth and converting them to stories which are intended to help the reader who might never pick up a more academically focused book. Therefore the Hirst’s attempt to use storytelling as the method for helping the reader understand Dr. Hiebert’s thoughts on truth.

   Unfortunately by taking the Doctor’s thoughts and trying to tell them in a larger narrative, I found the story to be quite difficult to understand. I had to re-read the opening chapters to fully understand what the author’s were referring to. Then if I put the book down, I had to go back to remind myself as to the crucial differences between what the author identifies as “Rock Dwellers,” “Island Dwellers,” and “Valley Dwellers” who all inhabit the imaginary community of River Town. The first 94 pages of the book are there to help the reader understand the differences between the three different types of “dwellers” which are meant to be ways of viewing the truth.

   The second half of the book begins with another long story, followed by an equally long explanation. It seemed to me that the author’s attempted to write in parable form, but because they were unable to take a complex thought and make it simple, ended up with complex stories and complex explanations.

   When it comes down to it… if you want to understand what Dr. Hiebert had to say, read the source. Never rely on what someone else has to say about the source.

   Nov 10th, 2009

7. sheyduck

   http://wp.me/p1bpn-rJ
   Yesterday I found myself thinking I might share this book I’ve just finished with someone. I thought it might help. I was immediately confused because my first impressions of Through the River weren’t good.
   The book is Through the River: Understanding your assumptions about the truth. It is my latest read for review for the Viral Bloggers Network.
   The book is about “truth lenses,” Which is a shorthand term Jon and Mindy Hirst use for epistemology. There are, in River Town (a mythical community metaphor used throughout the book), three truth lenses: Positivist, Instrumentalist, and Critical Realist. The Hirsts take the reader through the history of Western Philosophy to describe the progression that has brought us these three truth lenses.
   The Positivists represent, generally, conservatives and fundamentalists, and the Instrumentalists represent (again, generally) liberals and progressives. Both these truth lenses are described in detail yet are found lacking.
   Like anyone who tries to figure out where a story is going before he gets there, I had the positivists and instrumentalists pegged early in the story as positions the authors do not respect very much. Characters from either of these perspectives are, in the book’s portrayal, hopeless; they are stuck in their epistemology. It is only the Critical Realists who have hope, life, and healthy relationships. I was, at points, surprised not to find the Critical Realists described as wearing capes, masks, and tights.
   This methodology strikes me as both counterproductive and typical for evangelicals. Setting up the opposition, or alternative, points of views as straw men, then knocking them down with one’s superior point of view is, truthfully, neither fair nor generous.
   But, alas, for a primer on the history of the development of Western Philosophy, the Hirsts are more generous with what is left out than they are with the sadly lacking “truth lenses” they hope to present.
   Case in point: the explanation of philosophy in the West jumps from Plato to Copernicus to Einstein, only the first of whom was actually a philosopher. For the Hirsts, philosophy is a progressive, building development through history. However, their only source for citing Copernicus as a significant player is Thomas Kuhn, who is perhaps best known for his role in dismantling the progressive, building development way of understanding history, philosophy, and science.
   So, in other words, Jon and Mindy cite Thomas Kuhn (a philosopher) as their only source on Copernicus (not a philosopher) to support their use of Copernicus as playing a major role in modern philosophy. In doing so, they show that they don’t understand Kuhn.
   What the Hirsts want is for people, especially Christians, I think, to consider two things: first, that though there is objective, real truth, you don’t have a monopoly on it; and second, through communication and community we can all better come to know the truth and life that God offers us.

   Nov 10th, 2009

8. timothy_mathis

   Hi Oozers – this is a reflection informed by this book, as much as about this book.

   Continuing my ongoing full disclosure, there’s a nice moment here to make a quick comment on propositional knowledge – something that most people don’t think or care about, but which is extremely religiously significant. Following on my last post, Paul suggested that I’m still quite concerned with developing propositional beliefs – in (my own) other words, I’m still quite concerned with the religious significance of “truth statements”, as opposed to (or in addition to) feeling, meaning, life-change, experience, relationship, etc. There’s a bit of a yes and no to Paul’s observation. Coincidentally (maybe?) I’ve been reading a generally helpful book called Through the River by Jon & Mindy Hirst with Dr. Paul Hiebert. It’s essentially about just this propositional truth thing we’ve been talking about. You should read it. One of my favorite books by Evangelical authors that I’ve read in a while.

   To understand the emphasis that’s been put on ‘propositional truth statements’, consider the significance of Romans 10:9: “That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” Or the idea that the Bible is the Word of God (an extrabiblical (or at least extra-New Testamental) concept, by the way). You have to believe that certain words are ‘absolutely true’ or you’re in the wrong religiously.

   The new stereotype of pop-post-modernism has been that there are no propositional truths and that truth’s all relative. Propositions like “Jesus is Lord” are just sonic representations of abstractions created by subjective creatures interpreting according to limited abilities. They can’t be salvific in and of themselves. In response, the post-modern church says that it’s not about the propositional truths – it’s about the deep mysterious ungraspable meaning behind them. Or something like that. For the contemporary liberal church, this has meant that it’s not such a big deal if, for instance, we say the Apostles Creed but don’t believe it literally. We’re grasping for some deeper truth behind the Creed that binds us all together in God, or something like that. The important thing is participation in the ritual and faith and community and ethics. (Funnily enough, some liberal Episcopalians, I think, would consider you a heretic if you took the Creed out of the liturgy, but not if you just didn’t believe it.)

   I’m sort of into that, but not exactly. Along with the Hirst’s from the book I mentioned above, I’m a Critical Realist. As Wikipedia says, I think that

   “some of our sense-data (for example, those of primary qualities) can and do accurately represent external objects, properties, and events, while other of our sense-data (for example, those of secondary qualities and perceptual illusions) do not accurately represent any external objects, properties, and events.”

   In words that hopefully make at least a little bit of sense, Critical Realism is the middle ground between total postmodern relativism (‘humans can’t really know anything because we are limited and subjective creatures! Woe is me. Stare into the abyss but do not flinch!’) and modernist positivism (The human mind is so brilliant and powerful as to be able to usefully comprehend and define everything in the universe, if given the chance. WE COMPREHEND GOD). Critical Realism says that we really can figure some things out about reality, but we shouldn’t be too cocky about it. The ideas we form in our brains are at best limited and slightly inaccurate representations of reality, no matter how helpful they are.

   Following on this, I think that we actually can and should do our best to come to something like ‘propositional truth’, even in the religious arena. I believe in a healthy level of agnosticism – I am happy to identify as an Agnostic Christian – but I also believe religious believers need to be as honest as possible about what we believe to be true. I think, for instance, that it’s quite an important propositional belief that you can’t grasp God. ‘Humanity Grasping God’ is the definition of idolatry, and is something you’ll learn you can’t do if you think too long about it. Athiesm and Fundamentalism both put too much faith in the human ability to grasp absolute truth, but anything beyond a fairly strong agnosticism is presumptuous, if you ask me.

   Along these same lines, I think that it’s quite important that our religious practices allow us to participate not only a subjective quest towards a mysterious God, but really do facilitate an ongoing movement towards a better grasp of reality, and help us to live into that reality in increasingly healthy, effective, and honest ways.

   It might be confusing for some (though I’m sure not all) as to why I’m still a Christian in the midst of all of this. Hopefully I’ll get a chance to answer that question before too much time passes. When I do that, I’ll also point towards some of the ‘propositional truths’ that I think I sort of believe in.

   Nov 11th, 2009

9. ian.eastman

   http://www.kilnfolk.org/2009/11/through-river-review.html

   Through the River: Understanding Your Assumptions About Truth is a book about three isms and how they influence the way we see and interact with the world. Authors Jon & Mindy Hurst build an accessible introduction to positivism, instrumentalism, and critical realism based on the work of their mentor, the late Dr. Paul Hiebert, an anthropologist and missionary. Epistemology was once a topic confined to the college classroom, but practical issues facing Christians today benefit from a critical look into the way we see the world. After all, those lenses affect the way we relate to other people and share our faith. Through the River is an accessible introduction to the conversation.

   Nov 14th, 2009

10. gieseguy

    Just finished another book review for Viral Bloggers

    The title is “Through the River” Understanding your Assumptions about truth. Authors are Jon & Mindy Hirst with Dr. Paul Hiebert.
    The book is written to help people of faith better understand how they come to perceive the truth they hold. They use an allegory to depict three different faith cultures and how those environments create a “truth lens” to allow their inhabitants to perceive truth.
    Dr. Hiebert was an anthropologist and brings some interesting perceptions regarding how differently something can be viewed depending on ones culture.

    The three cultures depicted in the book are the Rock dwellers (Positivists), Island Dwellers (Instrumentalists) and Valley Dwellers (Critical Realists). The Positivists believe the truth to be knowable and needs to be shared. The Instrumentalists are more interested in how the truth is perceived and it is more of a subjective process. The critical realists seeks to find a balance between the two and provide an opportunity for dialogue and an understanding in the context of community.

    In the allegory a rock dweller discovers some information that creates a disruption with his/her truth lens and begins to question the adequacy of their lens for interpreting truth. They then enter the river of instrumentalism and try and sort out how this truth applies to their current situation or experience. The book attempts to describe the solution by swimming across the river of instrumentalism and onto the shores of critical realism. Here they are able to hold on to the truth they know and continue to learn the truth they are learning. Supposedly, this view is the cure all for one who has a disruption with their objective truth and finds a lack of solution with the relativism in the river of instrumentalism.

    This is probably a great book for a post modernist, not being from that camp it didn’t quite strike a chord with me. While it does provide answers to the difficulties in perceiving truth I don’t think the critical realists lens is as clear as the authors claim it to be. The sure shore of Critical Realism rather seemed a bit like an island in the river of instrumentalism combining reason and logic with intuition (that was not adequately described) and positivism and hoping that by dialoging together in a group truth will be discovered. I find it a bit disheartening that in a book written to people of faith about truth I can’t recall anything written about the Holy Spirit whom Jesus said would lead us into all truth. Truth it seems in the critical realist camp is a process that one learns about. Maybe I’m too mystical but I’m skeptical of a system that attempts to figure out a method of perceiving truth without bringing in the spiritual aspects of it.

    Nov 21st, 2009

11. holy heteroclite

    Some saw as my Facebook/Twitter status as a joke, and some interpreted it as a real question.
    Of course both were partly right.

    It was:

    “How do we know
    what we know
    what we know about epistemology?”
    (add your wise answers and wisecracks here)

    No, I am not much for
    “Woke up and went #1. Good color today.”

    Not only am fascinated by epistemology, but that Facebooked question is just the kind I should have asked Paul Hiebert….the late Mr. Epistemology himself, at least in theological anthropology/ missiology circles.

    (I spent an amazing, mind-expanding week with Dr. Hiebert once in New Haven, but I don’t think any of us students asked the master that exact question…).

    I later came to love Hiebert’s book, “Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shift.”
    (reviews and links):

    This book explores the question of epistemology, or theory of knowledge, and its impact upon how we view and do missions in today’s world.

    What must a new convert know or believe? How do they know? How can we translate and communicate Christian teachings interculturally without distorting the message? How should we do missions in an anti-colonial, postmodern era characterized by religious relativism and accusations of Christian imperialism?

    In struggling with these questions, Paul Hiebert focuses on the epistemological foundations that underlay them. He examines three specific theories of knowledge–positivism, instrumentalism/idealism, and critical realism. In the end he sides with the latter because it avoids the arrogance and colonialism implicit in positivism and the relativism of instrumentalism/idealism.

    Critical realism, Hiebert argues, strikes a kind of middle ground between the emphasis upon objective truth and the subjective nature of human knowledge. It allows for a real world that exists independently from human perceptions and opinions of it, restores emotions and moral judgments as essential parts of knowing, and creates the conditions for knowing persons intimately and as fully human–all of the which have important implications for Christian mission in the modern world.

    (Back cover)

    But I must admit I loved and understood the title more (I am a sucker for every key word there) than I did the deep truths of that somewhat dry, dense academic book. But at least I made a photo-op out of it. I guess the motivation behind this photo was to illustrate that we all have truth lenses/worldviews/lenses through which we read the world , ourselves and others (let alone books)…epistemologically speaking…and sometimes (as illustrated by this hip sleepware/eyewear that El Al Airlines gives you on the way to Israel), such can be blinders.

    So I was thrilled to hear, through Viral Bloggers, that a young couple (Jon and Mindy Hirst), cofounders of Generous Mind (“a think tank devoted to helping people be generous with their ideas”) had published (with Hiebert’s participatation and blessing), a popularized version of the book, intended to reach a broader audience.
    Called, “Through the River: Understanding Your Assumptions about Truth,” (preview it here) it weaves around a story, a three-pronged parable .

    Let me say I like it on several levels..AND it also met some of my low expectations and fears.

    But overall, I think it will be a helpful and practical volume for my teaching.

    Having watched students reach those life-changing “aha” moments when I teach Leonard Sweet’s model of EPIC shift, or Paul Hiebert’s take on centered sets, or his famous “excluded middle” (which I believe Hiebert himself expressed concern that the model took on a life of its own, and used in ways it was never intended or equipped to do) , I can see potential for using the story of the book in class.

    The book weaves a parable, or better yet allegory (even more dangerous) about River Town, in ordere Rock Dwellers (representing positivism), the Island Dwellers (instrumentalism), and the Valley Dwellers (critical realism). Hugely helpful in a way, but ultimately much too simplistic, and not enough nuance around the categories. And they also attempt to equate tje first with modernit, the second with postmodernity. That doesn’t/ can’t always work.
    There is also potential contradiction over whether the second category is inevitably relativistic (72 ,187). Relativity is not relativism……relatively speaking (:

    I also share with Steve Heyduck some concerns about (ironic but maybe inevitable) a simplistic overview of philosophy, and the predicatability of the “this model is bad, this one is good” technique..it felt a little cheesy.

    All this philosophizing may sound meaningless to you, but if you are not familiar with these categories, this book is a good and readable introduction…though one must be aware of the oversimplifications …which to their credit, the authors seem to admit. Such is the risk of allegory. I applaud the Hirsts for tackling it.

    Here’s the bottom line, and intended thesis:

    Critical realist epistemology {truth lens} strikes a middle ground between positivism, with its emphasis on objective truth, and instrumentalism with its stress on the subjective nature of human knowledge…It affirms the presence of an objective truth but recognizes that this is subjectivelu apprehended”
    (p 78, quoting Hiebert)

    I do appreciate the discussion of critical realism, with it’s emphasis on “the truth we know and the truth we are learning ” , intention over letter of the law (170)…and the example of E. Stanley Jones as critical realist (179) was insightful. Nice job translating to laypeople’s language. The case study on how the three Dwellers tackle divorce also opens windows to understanding.

    Recommended, with the concerns and limitations noted. And for me, it will serve as a springboard back into the source. Now I can really read and respond to Hiebert’s book.
    That means the Hirsts goal has been reached. Kudos.

    My fear about his book is that Hiebert himself operated partly out of a positivist approach (while claiming critical realist view)
    and unnecessarily demonized an instrumentalized approach. I will be intrigued to reread and comment on all that.

    I might even find my Facebook status question will be addressed in his volume.
    But how will I know when I know that it is answered? (:

    But first it’s off to watch Colbert lecture on truthiness…That might answer all my questions.

    Or question all my answers.
    http://davewainscott.blogspot.com/2009/11/through-river.html

    Nov 21st, 2009

12. pastorjohn

    asdfkjasdflkj

    Nov 22nd, 2009

13. pastorjohn

    You’ve been there before. You’re in a study group and someone is sharing something near and dear to her heart. Out of the blue, someone asks, “You really believe that God is like that?” and the debate is on. What began as a simple Bible study has now plunged into the metaphysical realm.

    The authors of Through the River contend that many of the disagreements we have in the church can be traced back to different understandings of the truth. Using the analogy of settlements along the river, Jon and Mindy Hirst present three different ways of understanding the truth or, what they call, truth lenses. Their work is rooted in the epistemological work of Paul Hiebert, a leading missiological anthropologist until his death in 2007.

    On one side of the river, we find the Rock Dwellers or the positivists. These independent folk have acquired, through reason and logic, a set of firmly held beliefs. Objective reality is ultimately knowable through the empirical methods of math and science. Agreement and the quest for that one right answer are at the heart of the Rock Dwellers’ world.

    Islanders or instrumentalists still believe in a real world that can be described in a multitude of ways. In contrast to positivists, they rarely argue with each other since they have given up on the quest for a single universal truth in favor of embracing the unique experiences of individuals. Many different answers to one question can co-exist on the islands because tolerance is valued over conformity.

    Across the river, we find the Valley Dwellers or the critical realists, a harmonization of the best of the positivist and instrumentalist worlds. The watchword in the valley is “the truth you know and the truth you are learning” (76). In their quest for knowledge, Valley Dwellers bring together the objective knowledge gained through study and the subjective knowledge of experience. Critical realism values both tolerance and the quest for furthering knowledge in community.

    The advantage of using the river analogy is that it genuinely helps illumine the three different positions and how they interact with each other. The main problem I see with the image is that while the middle position in the analogy is occupied by the Island Dwellers, actually the middle position between the extremes is really the Valley Dwellers. The Valley Dwellers are a way of having your cake and eating it, too, of holding on to the quest for foundational truth beyond pure subjectivity but also a way to stay in dialogue with those who disagree with us.

    Without saying as much, the argument of the book tends to favor the third truth lens, critical realism. This becomes clear not only in the progression one makes in the story from the rock dwellings through the islands to the valley, but also in the various examples, where critical realism seems to offer the best way to handle truth matters and move beyond confrontations and stalemates in Christian dialogue.

    Since the proof is in the pudding, how well does this schematic of three truth lenses work in the real world? The Hirsts’ treatment of the church’s mission and witness exemplifies how well the truth lens schema works in practice.

    Rock dwellers define the gospel “largely in terms of knowledge” (174). So evangelistic witness primarily takes the form of presenting arguments to convert someone’s soul. Witness may involve “mercy ministries” but tends to focus on sharing the truth of the gospel.

    The view from the islands is quite different. Outreach entails “delivering love through dialogue” (174). The goal of missionaries is to listen and understand other religious beliefs since all belief systems are valid. The focus of instrumentalist missions is on felt needs like humanitarian aid (176).

    Not surprisingly, the Valley Dwellers combines the best of both worlds: ministering to felt needs and helping others understand what faith in God might mean in their context. In mission, critical realist missionaries may also discover new understandings of their own faith (181). This position is able to harmonize the age-old conflict between those who favor “saving souls” and those who favor “serving soup.” It’s not either/or; it’s both.

    The analysis of different approaches is nice, but breaks no new ground. How about taking the truth lenses to the next level and consider something really controversial, like the church’s position on homosexuality? Do they help illumine the arguments and divisions we’ve witnessed over the last 40 years in the mainline denominations?

    It seems that the positivists would argue that there is only one correct view in scripture on homosexuality. That view might be summed up by the teaching of my own denomination (UMC): “homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teachings.” They reach this position by looking specifically at the scriptures that condemn homosexuality Using logic and reason, positivists would conclude that a lifestyle of practicing homosexuality cannot be reconciled with Christian practice. Positivist churches would have little difficulty adopting policies that deny avowed homosexuals membership and leadership in their churches.

    Instrumentalists or relativists have given up the notion that there can be one view of homosexuality even within the Christian community. Their position would be influenced by differing cultural backgrounds and views of Biblical authority. It seems that a relativist church would practice wide toleration toward those in the GLBT community. Membership and leadership in the church seems also to follow from the instrumentalist emphasis on tolerance of different values. Discussions of sexuality would likely be not only rich and rewarding but ultimately frustrating and confusing. Forming churches or communities of faith among those with an instrumentalist bent would be a vexing project indeed. There is such diversity that the differences could well lead either to many small churches or no church gatherings at all.

    What about the critical realists? Representing the best of both the positivist and instrumentalist worlds, how would they fair in dealing with this issue? Using the watchword, “the truth we know and the truth we are learning,” it seems that critical realists would recognize that we have different understandings of the compatibility of a homosexual lifestyle with Christian practice. In humility, we would continue to dialogue with our brothers and sisters to better understand those who don’t agree with us. A critical realist church could hardly exclude the GLBT community from leadership or membership, since all are still struggling toward truth together. The most that could be said affirmatively is that thinking Christians do not yet agree.

    As a pastor who has watched his own and several other denominations struggle bitterly over the place of the GLBT community in the church, I think that this position would be much more honest and perhaps closer to where we really are as a church. However, since the critical realist position does not seem to exclude the full inclusion of GLBT’s in the church as we work on truth together, my hunch is that few in mainline churches will be willing to embrace this stance because of the potential political fallout.

    I hope that Through the River is widely read. The presentation is certainly accessible to those with little or no background in philosophy. The issues the Hirsts address are not simply theoretical but have a quite practical focus. Dialogue both within faith communities and and between different religious groups has fanned into flames in recent years and all would benefit from stepping back and considering how one comes at the truth.

    The scheme of three truth lenses allows us to see how we can move toward a position where positive engagement with others can occur, without having to sacrifice either our own sense of what is true about ultimate reality or our notion of who we are as persons conditioned by different sets of cultural experiences. Dr. Paul Hiebert, through the Hirsts, offers us a third way beyond retrenchment or disengagement. In fact, one could argue that critical realism may well be the epistemological follow-through of Jesus’ command to love. We listen. We’re non-defensive. We believe that God is working in every situation. We are not rescuers of the truth. We can live with dissonance. We don’t have to sacrifice truth to relationships. We discover truth in the other and in the stranger. And in the process we grow in love toward God and neighbor.

    Nov 22nd, 2009

14. Monster

    The Book
    “Through the River: Understanding Your Assumptions about Truth” is by Jon and Mindy Hirst. The 195 page book was published in 2009 by Authentic Publishing. The back cover states that the book’s subject is Philosophy/Epistemology. The Hirsts use the book to recapitulate the views of the late Paul Hiebert, a missiologist.

    Quote
    “Every worldview – and there are many out there – has an epistemology built into it” (page 17).

    The Good
    “Through the River” introduces the general Christian reader to epistemology and what the authors refer to as the three “truth lenses” of Positivism, Instrumentalism and Critical Realism.

    The Bad
    I found the writing facile and simplistic. The authors wrote the book – ostensibly, at least – to question assumptions about truth – yet they seem incapable of seeing past their own a priori assumptions. These assumptions evidently include the view that the Bible is a magic book dictated by God to man and that Jesus is God incarnate. These may be perfectly appropriate assumptions for a book on Christian living or discipleship, but the back cover of the book indicates that the subject matter is Philosophy/epistemology.

    The authors also jump to unsupported conclusions when they say things like “There is no doubt that Jesus is all that we need to know in order to have life” (page 22). Really – no doubt at all? Even a first year philosophy student at a public University would ask “How do you know? And how do you know that you know?” It appears that Jon and Mindy Hirst assume a homogeneous Christian readership. Perhaps that is their target audience; even so, they shouldn’t take for granted that every reader buys into (or is even familiar with) Evangelical Christology.

    I read chapter 7 (entitled “Holding Truth Lenses up to the Bible”) in the hopes that the Hirsts would make the case for a Christian epistemology that relies on both faith and reason. I was disappointed to discover instead that the discussion centers on the kinds of Bible verses that Positivists like vs. those favored by Instrumentalists or Critical Realists. There was also way too much proof-texting.

    I am not a philosopher, but it seems to me that any book about faith, epistemology and the Bible is deficient unless it includes a discussion about a mystical/prophetic worldview. After all, Christian faith allows for a belief in miracles, angels, spirits and a man who claimed to be God. Do we really think that the author of the Technicolor visions in the book of Revelation was a Critical Realist?

    As I read the authors’ uncritical approach to “truth”, I couldn’t help but think of the scene from the Gospel of John in which Jesus says “Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice”. Pilate asks the famous question, “What is truth?” To this, Jesus gives the only answer possible: silence.

    The Bottom Line
    The bottom line is that “Through the River” is not worth your time. If you have an interest in epistemology, take a philosophy course at your local college or University. If you have an interest in missions (which appears to be the authors’ true impetus), read a book on missions – not one masquerading as philosophy.

    Nov 23rd, 2009

15. jbonewald

    I will start off by saying that I think this can be a very helpful book. It does a pretty good job of outlining three basic ways to see the world and to understand how we might approach truth. The three basic views presented are Positivism, Instrumentalism, and Critical Realism.

    The authors provide an excellent and accessible set of illustrations to help us understand these three views and how they interact with one another. They also help us to pretty easily understand how these views might interact with the scriptures and the traditions of the church.

    I am not going to explain those three basic views here, but suffice it to say that if you butt heads against a “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it” framework for seeing the world but still somehow hold to the idea that ‘truth can be known’ then this might be a helpful book for you to read. Or maybe you worry about the faith of a son or daughter who seems to be wavering from the ‘Truth’ as you yourself understand it, this might be a helpful book for you as well.

    Having said that, I will offer one a caveat. This book is written with a fairly specific audience in mind: your average person in the pew. Since that audience may not have a working knowledge of what one means when one says something like “our world is increasingly post-modern,” the authors have simplified things quiet a bit.

    Unfortunately, in their goal of simplification, the authors have made some horrible glosses over the history of philosophy. I don’t think it’s not enough to distract from the overall purpose or value of the book. But it’s certainly not the book I would recommend to somebody seeking to grasp the post-modern world.

    Nov 23rd, 2009

16. Matthew Raley

    This short book on epistemology will be useful to its intended audience, and, as with any book, potentially frustrating to others.

    I take the intended audience to be evangelicals who hold a high view of the Bible, and who wrestle with how to engage the many perspectives in contemporary society. This audience wonders whether one can engage them at all with a high view of Scripture, or whether to believe the Bible is to opt out of today’s culture. Put another way, the question is whether one can engage without compromising truth.

    The Hirsts, in their popularization of the late Dr. Paul Hiebert’s work, argue that truth remains an objective category. Truth really exists outside our own heads. They write (p 22), “Simply put, we know that God is truth. He is the Creator of all that is sure, all that is known, and all that is to be.” They add, “Our pursuit of truth may begin in ourselves, as we struggle with our finite humanity, but it ends in Christ.”

    Knowledge of the truth, however, comes through a process. That process is not best conducted in debate, with systems built and defended, and competing systems attacked — one of the “truth lenses” the Hirsts describe. Nor is the truth found by isolating ourselves inside our own passions and priorities — a second lens. The process of knowing the truth is a collaborative one, in which we discover truth relationally through dialogue — a third lens, which Hiebert called “critical realism.”

    In other words, evangelicals shouldn’t have a dilemma between engagement with diverse perspectives and truth. Rather, truth is learned through engagement.

    The Hirsts expound this thesis using two stories, one about a river, another about a boat. Some readers will respond very well to this approach, though for me the narratives required too much explanation to be enlightening. But that is an issue of preference.

    Many evangelicals need to encounter these ideas, and Through the River is a tool I will use. But those who think evangelicals should have ditched the Bible long ago, and who can’t understand why anyone should trouble herself over objective truth, will have little use for this book.

    Nov 25th, 2009

17. jroddy

    I recently finished “Through the River” by Jon and Mindy Hirst and can honestly say that I enjoyed this book. I think I enjoyed it mostly because they were attempting to tackle a heavy subject in how humanity makes truth assumptions. While this work is in no part a complete look at the three truth lenses that they talk about, it is a great starting point for someone who is trying to grasp the concepts.

    I have done some teaching on modernity/postmodernity and am always looking for new metaphors to help people begin to grasp what each project is trying to do. I know that much of the conflict that I have experienced in church as an associate pastor has been centered around these groups not knowing how to interact together. I thought that the Hirst’s addressed this issue well in the latter part of the book and in such a way that hopefully each side can begin to understand each other as allies and not as enemies.

    I would recommend this book to anyone seeking a greater understanding of their own truth assumptions as well as those of their neighbor or the other. This is not a heavy academic work and therefore I think it can be read and understood by almost anyone.

    Nov 27th, 2009

18. patjdawson

    http://patjdawson.blogspot.com

    The content of this book is presented in a way that is easy to understand. With terms that aren’t commonly thrown around in everyday conversation, the two authors do a great job of presenting the material. They focus primarly on three different truth lenses. There are more ‘truth lenses’ but most are just slight variations of the three major ones.

    The context of each of the three different truth lenses (Positivism, Instrumentalism, and Critical Realism) is told through an analogy of a place called River Town. It’s not hard to make connections to real life. Rock Dwellers, Island Dwellers, and Valley Dwellers (Positivism, Instrumentalism, and Critical Realism) are all portrayed very accurately to the kind of people we all know. It even helps you to understand why you view certain things the way you do depending on which you relate to the most.

    It takes no real shots at either ‘group’ of people as it’s written in a way that is respectful of whoever the reader may be. It outlines the positives of each one and calls us to move forward and engage one another with love to truly advance the Gospel. However, I have the same conclusion that many reviewers have already expressed. Those who need to read the book the most will not be the ones who read it.

    Some reservations: It may come off as a ‘dry read’. It seems like it might be one of those books that many people will give up on after a chapter or two. I admit, it was a struggle at times but it did challenge me to rethink how I engage people who have different world views/truth lenses/etc.

    Nov 28th, 2009

19. kmcdade

    On the blog at http://wp.me/pf0Fn-1T

    Through the River: Understanding Your Assumptions about Truth, by Jon and Mindy Hirst, took me a while to read. It’s not long, but it’s dense with philosophical thought and information.

    The Hirsts describe three basic truth lenses: positivism, instrumentalism, and critical realism, applying them to Christianity and how Christians relate to the world and each other. They use analogy and story to explain the truth lenses, but reading it still requires work. I found myself taking notes and making outlines to make sense of it all. Here are the basics of the three truth lenses:

    Positivists, known in the book as Rock Dwellers, believe that “all truth about us and about our world is knowable, and that it is our job to engage in an active search for that truth, allowing us to expose untruth.” All truth is objective, regardless of individual viewpoint, culture, etc.

    Instrumentalists (Island Dwellers in the book) reject total objectivity, seeing truth as a personal matter. Truth can be different for each person, depending on their background and experience. Instrumentalists have no problem allowing different systems and theories to co-exist.

    Critical Realists, known as Valley Dwellers in the book, is summarized as “the truth you know, and the truth that you are learning.” This lens acknowledges that universal truths exist, but also that the experiences of different people and cultures affect how they perceive and use these truths. Critical realists understand that we can always learn more about truth, and that we can learn from the perspective of others.

    Interestingly, these truth lenses can apply regardless of ones religious and political viewpoints. I can think of people who are liberal and conservative, religious and atheist, who could fit all of these descriptions. And I can even see all three in myself, at various times in my life and in different situations. I know there are issues on which I’m pretty rock-like, and others in which I’m a good deal more tolerant.

    Though it was a difficult read that took a lot of concentration, I did enjoy the book and appreciate what it had to say. I think it does provide a good explanation of why many people have trouble relating to each other on religious and political issues, and it gives good suggestions for how people can try to relate to each other.

    Nov 28th, 2009

20. St_Diva

    It maybe that I was expecting something different, it may be that I shouldn’t have read the Preface, it may be that I already have this in my mental vocabulary, but I felt very ‘Bored Now’ by the book.

    I was expecting something much more in the style of “A New Kind of Christian”, where a theological discussion was taking place as a conversation between two fictional characters, or even “The Dream Giver” where half the book was Allegory and the other half discussed it. This book was neither.

    The central allegory of the story was very rudimentary. It just wasn’t interesting. This made it very difficult to finish the rest of the explorations. I just felt like this book was a lecture that the professor was trying to make interesting by giving it a hypothetical situation.

    I still kept feeling like this could have been done better.

    The other thing that drove me nuts was the references to Dr. Paul Hiebert. I completely understand the need to give him credit for the work he did, but tone in which they kept referencing him was really supercilious and I wasn’t impressed. It felt like they were showing just how important they were that he hung out with them and talked about this.

    I just didn’t enjoy this book much at all, which is too bad. It was a great idea, it’s just the execution that left something to be desired.

    Nov 30th, 2009

21. Mark

    The outstanding missiologist, Paul Hiebert, taught at my alma mater, Fuller Seminary and then finished his career at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

    I have always admired his thoughtful work, and recall his thought provoking lectures, which usually left my head spinning.

    His textbook, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, helped us navigate the murky waters of contextualization vs. syncretism in the context of Native American ministry. (There were several occasions, however, when I’d have to read a paragraph a half dozen times before I understand what he was trying to communicate.)

    Jon and Mindy Hirst, have recently brought some basic Hiebert concepts within the reach of simple-minded readers like me. I love cookies from the bottom shelf!

    Ooze Viral Bloggers recently provided me a copy of their new book, Through the River: Understanding Your Assumptions about Truth.

    The Hirsts have captured some pretty deep philosophy, and traslated it, via a delightful story form, into something the rest of us can grasp. Their mythical village of “River Town”, illustrates the the three primary ways people understand truth.

    The Rock Dwellers (positivists) see everything as black and white. “I have all the truth and if you disagree, you don’t have any!” They engage others via argument and refutation.

    The Island Dwellers (instrumentalists) see everything as relative. “I have my truth. You have your truth. There is no absolute truth. Every perspective is equally valid.”

    The Valley Dwellers (critical realists) believe that there certainly IS absolute truth — but that nobody grasps it absolutely. They value the sincere quest for a deeper understanding. They believe that we can learn something from anybody, and this requires genuine humility. “Tell me your experiences and I’ll tell you mine. Then we will see how that fits together into the larger picture.”

    An excellent read, If I ever teach a course on philosphy, world view, or anthropology, this will be a text.

    Nov 30th, 2009

22. gdeitz

    I recently read Through the River by Jon and Mindy Hirst. I started reading the book with great anticipation as I felt the topic of truth is relevant to any discussion that takes place. I felt that how one views truth is extremely important when religion enters into any conversation. I wanted the book to break down some walls and be something that I could pass along to others so that they might open their eyes and minds to the idea of different approaches and opinions to the same topic. I wanted the book to truly encourage people to strive to put aside their pre-conceived notions on how life is and start trying to step into other people’s worlds; in essence, to see the world through someone else’s eyes.

    Unfortunately, I was not able to complete the book as it just did not keep my interest. I honestly felt that many of the topics were too general and there was little that encouraged the reader to come to their own conclusions. I felt like through the part I was able to complete, the authors were attempting to steer my reading down the path they desired. It did not seem to approach the “towns” from the approach of pro’s and cons in an unbiased straight forward manner, but instead, I felt like I was being guided to one set of pros away from two sets of cons.

    I do hope that the next selection does provide a bit more unbiased substance.

    Nov 30th, 2009

23. kevinstewart

    Through the River is a new book by John and Mindy Hirst. This book challenges us to examine what we believe about truth and how what we believe effects those we come into contact with. In this book truth is presented through three “lenses” and explained using a metaphor about a town and a river that runs through it. (Brad Pitt isn’t in this one!!)

    The one line that really stuck in my head in this book is the one used to summarize the critical realist truth lens. It views truth as “the truth we know and the truth we are learning.”

    Dec 6th, 2009

24. ngilmour

    Through the River: Understanding Your Assumptions about Truth

    I should start this post with an apology to Mike Morell and the other folks at Ooze Viral Blogs: I’m certain they sent me this book some time in October, but I’m just now finishing up, well past the 30 days that we’re supposed to take to get our reviews live. I can only hope that my infant-slowed progress doesn’t keep me from receiving other titles when they come available.

    Now on to the review.

    Having done a bit of reading in philosophy of science and philosophy of language, I could tell relatively soon in this book that Dr. Paul Hiebert’s expertise lay somewhere around those subfields of philosophy. Jon and Mindy Hirst set forth an allegory of a village of people living along a river, some living on the rocky shore, some living on the rocky shore on one side of the river, some living on the sandy islands in the river’s shallows, and some living in the grassy valley on the other side of the river. In terms of their approaches to the world, the Rock-Dwellers prefer solid proofs for solid claims, disputing in spirited debates until someone is right and someone is wrong. River-Dwellers inhabit islands of people who already agree with them, so they feel no need to establish that their way of life is any better or even any different from those on another island. And the Valley-Dwellers combine the solidity of the rock with the flexibility of the islands. Respectively the Rock, Island, and Valley people represent Positivism, Instrumentalism, and Critical Realism.

    The influence of philosophy of science, as I said, wasn’t hard to spot. Positivism, instrumentalism, and realism are, after all, common shorthand for philosophies of science, and questions of a sentence’s truth are common to both lines of inquiry. To the extent that this book is a primer on those inquiries’ basic categories for a generally educated Christian, it’s a success.

    The problem comes when the book ventures outside of relationships between science and language and tries to take on ethical and academic-theological questions. If a man with a hammer in hand sees everything as a nail, then a trio of writers with philosophy of science vocabulary in mind seem to see everything as a question of truth-claims. Those intellectual tools are valuable, make no mistake, but they’re ill suited to answer certain questions. When the authors made an attempt to account for Plato in terms of 19th- and 20th-century philosophy of science debates I merely chuckled, but when they got to some more complex questions, I did have serious reservations.

    The example that rises immediately to mind has to do with intercultural Christian missions. The Hirsts chalk up a shift from civilize-and-evangelize missions among English-speaking Protestant missionaries to a social-service model to a shift from what they call a “positivist truth lens” to an “instrumentalist truth lens.” The fact of the matter is that scientific instrumentalism has its roots in David Hume and other Enlightenment writers just as positivism has its roots in Francis Bacon and other Enlightenment folks. In other words, the days of greatest English and American missionary activity featured a contest between world-systems, not the dominance of one followed by the intrusion of another. Once again, the introduction to the vocabulary worked, but the authors seem to have gotten the philosophy-of-science fever, painting the whole of Christianity with its terms when, to be fair, they apply best to a relatively narrow span of human pursuits.

    One other problem that occupied my mind as I read was how the Hirsts were locating their Critical-Realist truth lens, the one that’s clearly the culmination (even more clearly than H. Richard Niebuhr’s “Christ Transforming Culture” is the culmination of Christ and Culture) of the book. There are passages that claim that Critical Realism is a very new way to apprehend the world, one that comes from the action of transcending postmodernism/Instrumentalism. Then there are other passages that seem to hold Critical Realism as the natural culmination of most human inquiry. I think that both of those stories have a place in a comprehensive philosophy, but once again, trying to make everything a nail means that some of the things one whacks with one’s hammer aren’t going to serve very well.

    Had the book set out on a humbler quest, I would have ranked it an unqualified success, a good primer on some important questions. Unfortunately, some jobs just aren’t right for the hammer.

    Dec 15th, 2009

25. David

    Tomorrow morning I need to get up early and head to Rawdon Street to finish preparing to lead the reflecting and worshiping of our church community.
    Tonight I’m outside smoking a cigar and drinking cider and beer. And I’m reflecting on the decade that has lead me here.
    And at the beginning of 2000 I was taking a course on Psalms at Heritage Bible College and playing on the college basketball team (2000 Champions!). I was preparing a portfolio presentation for my application to go to Sheridan College for Illustration.
    Reaching further back, I had grown up in the church. I attended a Christian private elementary school from Kindergarten to Grade Eight. After highschool I spent two years at the Bible College. I cemented my faith with certainty and arguments to prove myself against the unbelievers I would surely meet in art school.
    In 2001 those two planes crashed into New York. My certainty and argumentativeness rose to a fever pitch. I believed that America needed to blow up Islam in order to save Jesus. In class I debated evolution. I became a young earth sciences scholar of the first degree.
    Then one of my dearest friends told me a story about a wonderful woman who had died. She loved others and treated them as she would have them treat her. Her son was devasted by the loss of his loving mother so early in her life. And my sure, certain, and rocky foundation crumbled and sifted down into sand.
    I used my influence to encourage our campus Christian group to engage issues that we could invite everyone to converse about – not just other Christians. Our topics included God Hates War, What Is Love?, What Is Religion?. We invited an Iraqi ex-pat to come and tell us what was really going on in the lives of people in former-Mesopotamia. And it worked. We were able to engage with atheists and muslims on these topics without worrying about protecting our own message to tightly.
    I left art college and went back home. I became clear to me how much I had moved. I no longer was living in the rocky shore of certainty where my parents lived. I was living fully in the river. After a few months living in this frustrating mixture of truth cultures I moved to Toronto to live as I felt I needed to live. Five months later I was broke and broken (the good kind of broken). I moved home again, only to find that I was no longer at home. I was an adult, and needed to move out again.
    Two jobs and one cross-country-roadtrip later I found myself out of the house, working a career graphic design job and involved in a relationship that would become a marriage.
    Through my job (in Christian publishing) I found things. Postmodernism, Emergence, Conversations, Brian D. MacLaren, tall and skinny Kiwis, Simple Ways, and a whole community of deeply committed spiritual folk who I never could have dreamed to have existed.
    I discoved a love of God that didn’t revolved around a need that every brick in my truth wall be perfectly fitted. I could engage with people that believed differently than me and not feel threatened that my faith would be fragmented, nor that my own views would necessarily unjustly impact them.
    I’ve talked with these people, I’ve read more books than is healthy, and I’ve begun to find ways to live what I believe again. Not everything is as it should be, but love is there. Hope is there. The Kingdom of God is here (and to come).
    And now I need to get to sleep so that I can adequately serve our church community tomorrow.
    Thanks to Jon and Mindy Hirst (and Dr. Paul Heibert). This wasn’t really a review of their lovely book. And unlike their writing seems to suggest, I don’t think I’ve arrived at any sort of final destination, but I do love the progression that happens in one’s life when you make that daring dive off the rocky cliffs and swim through the river to the valley beyond. Goodnight.
    (I’m seriously devastated that I have cut a decade of my life down to a few paragraphs. There is so much I wanted to say, but I also wanted you to read this. Much love.)

    Jan 2nd, 2010

26. edan0889

    I never thought that I would have the troubles I have: Stacks of books to read and so little time. There are books from friends and study groups and books needing reviews and then Christmas day came along and my “sneaky” wife bought me a Kindle. Between the free books, and the not so free, I am looking at 15-20 more books to read than normal. I have been swamped. The definition of swamped: “When your kayak’s hull is partially or completely filled with water, usually the result of a wet exit”. I have stepped out of my kayak and toppled boat and myself into the waters.

    Needless to say, I have some commitments I have made and one of those is a review of the book: Through the River by Jon and Mindy Hirst (with Dr. Paul Hiebert). Where do I begin with this awesome little book?

    To quote TheOOZE Viral Bloggers: “Through the River is a challenging and fascinating book told allegorically, taking the reader on a journey through River Town, weaving a memorable tale on how people can live in close proximity while having radically contrasting views.”

    My impression of this book: It takes you on a journey. It’s an adventure where you come to realize that things aren’t so cut and dried. It also gave me hope that differing views just might co-exist in troublesome times.

    One question I began asking myself: “Is my pragmatism a way of finding truth about the external world or trying to control it with useful fictions?” Another: “Do I build mental silos (which is expertly defined in the book)?”

    One lesson I quickly learned from the book is: “…the discovery of truth starts with facts and is realized in community.” Another: “Knowledge is merely a map of reality.”

    Though my review here is brief, I whole-heartedly recommend this book. There, I have started my bilge-pump… “A device used to remove water from the hull in case the boat is swamped.” I feel more buoyant already.

    Note: Anyone who has read my previous reviews will have noticed that I give a lot of “whole-hearted” recommendations, however one must remember that I am choosy about the books I read (I am such a slow reader) and rarely finish a “bad” book (making me ineligible to review it). If you are inclined to read Through the River by Jon and Mindy Hirst (with Dr. Paul Hiebert) you will not be disappointed.

    http://edan0889.blogspot.com/2010/01/through-river.html

    Jan 12th, 2010

27. frgregoryj

    When I started doctoral studies at Duquesne University in 1986 I experienced a most unpleasant surprise. My undergraduate work in psychology and my masters in moral theology were both done at the University of Dallas. UD was, and is, a traditional Catholic institution founded on, as its former president the late Donald Cowan put it, the conviction that truth and virtue do exist and are the proper object of a liberal arts education.

    And DU? Well, let’s just say that they didn’t, and still don’t, seem to share Dr Cowan’s vision for Catholic higher education.

    Overall, I have spent almost 15 years at Duquesne. From 1986-1996 I was a graduate student. From 1991-1996, I was a staff member. When my wife went back to get her law degree, I spent two years as an adjunct faculty member.

    If there is one life lesson I have taken from my time at UD and DU is how little a shared faith tradition can matter. I would be hard pressed to think of two institutions that are more different in ways that matter and ways that don’t.

    All of this came to mind as I sat down to write about Jan & Mindy Hirst’s primer on epistemology, Through the River: Understanding You Assumptions About Truth (Authentic Press, 2009, $14.99). Together with the missions anthropologist and former professor at Trinity International University, the late Dr Paul Hiebert (1932-2007), they have written a very good introduction to three different epistemological theories (what in the book they call “truth lens”). Based on Hiebert’s work, the authors explain the differences that arise in Christian ministry and evangelism depending on the truth lens that the person holds. These lens are positivism, instrumentalism, and critical realism.

    As they write different communities “live and act so differently because [they have] different assumptions about the truth.” They go on to say that people’s epistemological assumptions “include how they view the world, how they interpret the discoveries they make, and how they live in relationship with others who are making their own discoveries” (p. 17). Most significantly of all however, the authors argue (correctly) that our truth lens influences how we understand the Scriptures and present the Gospel.

    What makes this important is that in making this argument the authors (who are Evangelical Christians) have implicitly rejected the notion of sola Scriptura as it has come to be understood in much of American Evangelical Christianity. Though they root the different epistemological models in Holy Scripture, once the authors concede the existence of different approaches to Scripture they also concede the existence of different interpretative communities within which these approaches make sense. Without saying so explicitly, they are nevertheless arguing that Scripture is always understood traditionally. Or to put the matter differently, the Church is the context within which Christians read the Bible.

    While I think the book overall does a good job as an introduction to epistemology, I found the authors’ failure to deal with the question of whether or not there is a normative tradition within which to read Scriptures distracting in ways I suspect their intended Evangelical Christian readers would not. To be sure I admire the effort that the Hirsts make to reconcile the different epistemological approaches to Scripture that are current within Evangelical Christianity. For that matter, I am also thankful for the help they have given me in understanding better the epistemological assumptions that often inform many of the Evangelical Christians who in recent years have joined the Orthodox Church. Not surprisingly many–I dare say most–who have do so have brought with them their positivistic understanding of truth. Like their former co-religious, these new Orthodox Christians see the Christian faith as a “system of knowledge” that we must “align ourselves with” (p. 55).

    But the Hirsts have also offered me new insight into those Orthodox Christian who are instrumentalists. Unlike the positivists among us, the instrumentalists tend to be cradle Orthodox Christian. Like their instrumentalist Evangelical Christian counterparts, what informs their understanding of the Gospel is a very personal concern, they cannot “separate [them]selves, including [their] experiences, culture, and perspective,” from the Gospel (p.60). Because positivists Orthodox Christian converts seek after “pure” (i.e., non-ethnic) Orthodoxy and instrumentalist cradle ethnic Orthodox Christians emphasis the particularity of the faith we find ourselves in the unpleasant position of being unable to “understand one another” and as a consequence “simply talk past each other” (p. 65)

    To be fair, I have overdrawn these difference to the point of characture. And yet, often in our relationship (both in the Church and those outside her visible limits) characture is the medium of (mis-) communication.

    To the excessives of positivism and instrumentalism, the authors offer “critical realism.” Following Hiebert, they argue that critical realism “is a balance between instrumentalism and positivism.” From the latter it takes “the belief that truth can be known and shared” and seeks to balance “it with the individuality of our perspectives that we find in instrumentalism” (p. 93). How well critical realism does this is an open question. But there certainly is something to be said for the humility that allows the believer to distinguish between “the truth [he] knows and the truth [he is] learning” (emphasis in original, p. 76).

    I see the attract of critical realism both pastorally and personally. Looking back on my transition from UD to DU, I can see the practical importance of critical realism. Likewise my experience as a mission priests commends critical realism to me. But as I suggested above, while I admire the argument that they make, I think the argument that they don’t make is the more interesting one.

    Through the River makes a convincing case the Truth is both objective and personal; Truth is also communal and has a dynamic openness. Contrary to what I think the authors want to believe, while these different facets of Truth are captured by different “truth lens” this does not makes these different lens themselves true. Rather each reflects a partial approach to the Truth of the Gospel. Indeed given the efforts that the authors make to build bridges between and among the different truth lens they seem at least implicitly aware that though they might prefer critical realism, all three models are in some way needed. The challenge is how to maintain the balance among them and this is a question that the Hirsts do not address.

    Let me suggest that the balance that they are looking for is to be found by expanding their conversation to include the Great Tradition and especially the classical understanding of the Church as a visible, historical society that gathers together in the Holy Spirit and in the Name of Jesus Christ and offers to God the Father the acceptable and unbloody sacrifice of the Holy Altar, the Eucharist. Let me suggest in other words that the great value of Through the River is that it brings the reader to the threshold of St Justin Maryr’s vision of natural law, the ecclesiology of St Ignatius of Antioch and the robust defense of tradition offered by St Ireneaus. The differences that Hiebert and the Hirsts see among their fellow Evangelical Christians, like the differences I experienced when I moved from an university ground in the Catholic tradition to one that wasn’t, reflect ultimately not simply deficient “truth lens” but a deficient understanding of and commitment to the Truth.

    In Christ,

    +Fr Gregory

    http://palamas.info/?p=1275

    Jan 14th, 2010

28. edwardgoode

    I recently finished Through the River: Understanding Your Assumptions About Truth by Jon & Mindy Hurst (with Dr. Paul Hiebert). As the authors themselves note, this is not a hard-core (my words) book about the philosophies of truth, but instead trying to serve as a gateway to help people explore some of the ideas of one particular philosopher, Dr Paul Hiebert. I admit that I was not familiar with Dr. Hiebert’s thoughts prior to reading this book, so I cannot comment on the accuracy of the authors’ perspectives in the book.

    What I appreciated about the book is that the authors are trying to bring philosophy “to the masses” while trying to not water it down too much. I think they accomplish their goal in the book. Through their analogy of the various communities of River Town, they do paint a very good picture of a variety of worldviews about truth. What I think appeals about this idea is that it reflects a reality that many people are familiar with in the world today – a society strongly divided along worldview lines. The three communities in River Town do not interact a great deal and there is suspicion from each group towards the other. There is tension when one “crosses over” from one group to another. Yet, while they are divided, they are tied together because they are all a part of one system. This feels a lot like the current society we live in here in the US. We are all a part of one system, yet there is deep suspicion of others in the other “camps.” This is prevalent in the church, politics, and so forth.

    What my hope for people reading this book is that it serves not as an end in itself, but instead as a springboard into exploring other perspectives on truth. It whets the appetite and gives leadings to go forth in further study.

    http://www.edwardgoode.net/2010/01/18/through-the-river-understanding-your-assumptions-about-truth-a-brief-review/

    Jan 18th, 2010

for “Through The River: Understanding Your Assumptions About Truth by Jon & Mindy Hirst”

You must be logged in as a VIRAL BLOGGER to post a review.

2009 A is For Abductive April2 August Barna Brian McLaren Christ church community culture David C Cook ecology emergent emergent church emergent village emerging emerging church eschatology faith George Barna God gospel grace house church interfaith Jesus June Len Sweet Leonard Sweet love missional organic church politics postmodern Quantum Spirituality redemption reform September Shane Claiborne So Beautiful SoulTsunami spiritual formation spirituality theology The Shack