(5 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading ...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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
pastorjohn
asdfkjasdflkj
Nov 22nd, 2009
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.