I still have one day left to meet the deadline. Unlike the first two chapters, I want to be short in my treatment of the last chapter. After giving his critique of positivism and the two postmodern alternatives, Paul G. Hiebert concluded the book by introducing his chosen alternative, which is critical realism.

Introducing Critical Realism

Hiebert acknowledged both instrumentalism and idealism, the underlying epistemologies of postmodernity as legitimate responses to the perceived arrogance caused by positivism. However, for him, the postmodern alternatives are worse than the problem they want to replace.

They have no truth to affirm and no agenda to solve the growing problems on earth (p. 68).

For Hiebert, he found the "firm ground" he is looking for in critical realism. Instead of being reactive, this epistemology is proactive and a more humble alternative.

Here's how Hiebert describes the nature of critical realism:

• It affirms both the roles of objectivity and subjectivity. As such, he claims that this epistemology serves as "a middle ground" between positivism and instrumentalism.

• It has its notion of rationality that is different from the notions of both the positivist and the postmodern.

• The keywords in this epistemology are "realistic" and "critical". The other term for this borrowing from Charles Peirce is "critical common sensism" (p. 69).

• It offers a third way of looking at symbols and words that includes three elements: the sign as spoken or written words, a mental idea or image of the signified, and the reality itself.

The above description of critical realism is more of a general overview of this epistemology. Hiebert explained them in detail, which I cannot cover in this article due to the limitation of my time. Before relating critical realism to Christianity and mission, I want to conclude this section by elaborating more on the second element in what Hiebert called as the "triadic nature of signs" (p. 71) and in relating critical realism to globalism.

Four Levels in Mental Construction

1. Concepts formulated based on our experiences of reality.

2. Theories. They provide the proposed answers to the fundamental questions that the scientist is asking.

3. Paradigms. This is the knowledge systems labeled with different names. Thomas Kuhn is the one who introduced the specialized use of the term 'paradigm" to the scientific community. Other words include "research traditions", "belief systems" and "cognitive systems". Hiebert prefers to use "knowledge systems".

4. Worldview. This term reminds me of Herman Bavinck's analysis in his book, Philosophy of Revelation, which serves as a word to replace "religion" due to its bad reputation and the unacceptability of its knowledge claims in the modern era.

Critical Realism and Globalism

Hiebert's introduction of critical realism as the most appropriate epistemology in the emerging globalism in our time puzzles me not because I suspect the rationality of the proposal, but because of the way he compares globalism to the two previous paradigms.

Reviewing what Hiebert said about positivism, he describes it as the underlying epistemology of modernism. As for postmodernity, he gave us two alternatives, instrumentalism and idealism. And then, in introducing critical realism, his proposed direction, he categorically identified this epistemology as associated with globalism.

What I find puzzling is the comparison of globalism to modernity and postmodernity. It appears that there is a logical inconsistency in this type of reasoning. On what intellectual basis can Hiebert justify such a comparison?

From my perspective, this is like comparing apples to oranges. Globalism is more of a space description while the term "modern" describes time. If this is the case, globalism must be placed under the category of either modern or postmodern. If my critique is valid, then even critical realism must be placed under the postmodern alternative and not under globalism.

Conclusion

I initially intended this article to be the last piece in this series of writing projects. However, since it is becoming longer than I expected, I decided to stop here and will conclude this project in the next article. My last topic will be Critical Realism and Christianity.

Grace and peace!

Reference:

Hiebert, Paul G. 1999. Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shifts: Affirming Truth in a Modern/Postmodern World. PA: Trinity Press International.