In contrast to traditional perspective of rationality which is commonly known as independent, solitary, immobile, de-personalized, and context-indifferent, Wolterstorffian’s rationality is situated and shalom-minded. Nathan D. Shannon (2015, 2), in his Shalom and the Ethics of Belief delineates that Wolterstorffian’s rationality is situated rationality, which he calls shalom doxastic ethic. Shanon explicates that Wolterstorffians’ perspective on rationality is intellectual justification, doxastic conduct, and entitlement (p. 26-28). He highlights that Wolterstorfian’s rationality is “behaviour embedded in a web of practices that are socially and culturally significant” with shalom as the controlling or governing ethic (p. 4).
As human believing is situational, the doxastic norms of human believing are inseparable and inextricable from the rest of the persons’ life - roles and responsibilities (p. 29). In other words, someone’s rationality of believing is always interacting with one’s personal, social, professional and cultural obligations and responsibilities. Human believing is not purely abstract deontological and non-situated. Shannon concludes Wolterstorffian’s situational rationality by saying, “our believing, thinking lives are rife with human action and intention and imbued with situational and existential obligation and constraint, in an embodied and socially significant manner reflective of human nature generally. Believing is always human believing, the believing of concrete, situated individuals” (p. 30). Wolterstorfian’s rationality is dymamic, personalized, historized within the doxastic self.
The doxastic self is continuously self-programming. Shannon quotes Wolterstorff saying, “the doxastic subject as a changing and developing thinking and believing, socially engaged person whose doxastic faculties operate and develop (as is their nature to do), within the changing contexts of individual history and experience” (p. 34). Human beings have innate doxastic design which Wolterstorff calls “doxastic hard-wiring” that perpetually modifies and refines belief-forming dispositions to develop new ones which he calls “doxastic programming”. This doxastic programming-self is the product of one’s personal history and its interaction with the social histories (p. 39) in which a person is constantly forming beliefs (p. 73).
The struggle is whether doxastic programming is reliable due to the fact that human belief-forming faculties may deviate from the Maker’s design and errs (p. 37). The optimism of the doxastic-self lies upon the the Creator God who creates the human person and all his faculties so that human beings may discover the design and intention of a good and trustworthy Creator (p. 48). It is true that doxastic programming is not always truth-conducive, it may malfunction as it is not directly controlled, however, the belief-forming dispositions are governed (p. 54). Hence, it is crucial to lay out parameters to direct our belief-forming mechanisms as we do possess epistemic accountabililty to our Creator. In our practices of inquiry, we do have religious obligation toward our Creator and social obligation toward our fellow human beings (p. 59). Our doxastic accountability is weighed on our personal capacities, social roles and relations as well as our personal convictions (Shannon, 64). In the process, our belief-forming faculties are both subjective (our hardwiring and programming) and objective (our perspective on the object). The understanding of truth is both deontological and situational. Belief-forming is always historically and experientially conditioned. Shannon also argues that Wolterstorffian’s situationalism is not relativism, for relativism cannot adopt entitled disagreement, whereas Wolterstorff affirms entitled disagreement (p. 78-79). In response to rejection and disbelief of Christian self-conscious belief of the good world created by the Creator, human sinful rebellion and its final inauguration of redemption in Jesus Christ, Wolterstorff asserts, “it all depends” (p. 181). The epistemological basis of this doxastic control belief is “innocent until proven guilty” (p. 46).
Our epistemic rationality has to be subordinated under moral rationality which incorporates relational ethics - God-human, human-human and human-nature encompassed within the biblical idea of shalom. Peace and fulfillment in the relationship of God-human, human-human, human nature and within oneself is the surpassing standard of doxastic deontology (p. 83). Shalom is the bedrock of moral rationality (p.84) for it is the comprehensive governing ethic for Christians (p. 123) as well as doxastic accountability. Shalom is the overarching picture which serves as the basic human good for society. Shalom is “the way things ought to be, the way things were intended, or the way life and things would be were it not for the fall” (p. 104). Christians are called to be faithful and committed to the vision of shalom for human flourishing, for it is the biblical vision to orient our reflections (p. 109). It is the substance of biblical teaching in terms of Christ’s cosmical redemptive work for the world which will be fully realized in the eschaton. It is also universal human calling (p. 120). The purpose of shalom driven rationality is for the betterment of society (p. 124), and moreover, it is Christian conviction in particular (p. 140). Although Shalom is the biblical vision of human flourishing, it does not exclusively be the property of Christians, instead it is universally known (p. 142). Shalom value is an expectation of human flourishing. It is the biblical vision of the good life for the world. It incorporates the enjoyment of one’s relationship with one-self, with others, and with God.
And in executing shalom as Christian global-mindedness, one has to embrace shalom intrinsic value in both theory and practice, the interdependence between theory and praxis, the transcendence vision of shalom as the most basic obligations for everyone (p. 140). Such praxis oriented rationality aims at transforming the world. Due to the avertiveness of Neo-Calvinism’s academic work, as it neglects the praxis responsibilities, thus, Wolterstorff urges to push it further toward shalom-driven academia (p. 143-150). Christians scholars should embrace shalom as the vision for universal flourishing. It calls us to hear the voice of the oppressed, the exploited, the weak, the wounded world calling for liberation. Wolterstorff criticizes the weakness of placing human mission merely on the cultural mandate as it is inadequate, falling short of the gospel. Human mission has to be the mandate to work for shalom (Wolterstorff 1987, 172). It is noteworthy that truth is “not an end in itself, but for the sake of corporate, social well-being” (Shannon, 164). Against the belief that of human depravity would disable the work fo Shalom, Wolterstorff (1987, 18) believes that despite human perversity, the capacity is never lost as shalom obligation is God-given.
According to Wolterstorffian’s rationality, shalom is the governing principle for theorizing or epistemic self-governance for Christian commitments. The bible picturizes the Christian life as creation - fall - (present) semi-realized redemption - (yet-to-come) fully-realized redemption (p. 179). Shalom is both universal ethic and teleological-historical-redemptive vision given by God. We should understand salvation as not from the world but of the world. The good creation, the incarnation of the Logos, body resurrection, the coming down of the New Jerusalem demonstrates the non-abandonment of the world. The refiner’s fire is the fire not the fire of total annihiliation but the fire of cleansing and purifying (2 Pet. 3:10; 1 Pet. 3:20-21). Struggling for justice, the dimension of shalom as well as striving for shalom is Christ’s Kingdom call in the present world by protecting, preserving and advancing shalom. In fact, Christ’s restorative and reconciling work is the substance of shalom. Hence, Wolterstorffian’s rationality is shalom-doxastic-situated ethic.
