The fear that ‘actual events’ will disappear beneath a welter of particular people’s perceptions is a fear…to be rejected as groundless. As a particular example, it must be asserted most strongly that to discover that a particular writer has a ‘bias’ tells us nothing whatever about the value of the information he or she presents. It merely bids us be aware of the bias (and of our own, for that matter), and to assess the material according to as many sources as we can.
Intellectual honesty consists not in forcing an impossible neutrality, but in admitting that neutrality is not possible. (quoting Arthur Holmes)
Similarly, the fear of ‘objectivization’ which so affected Rudolf Bultmann’s theology may be laid to rest. Bultmann, within his neo-Kantian philosophical heritage, was anxious about seeming to talk of objects or events other than by talking of them in relation to the observer. He therefore insisted (among other things) on doing theology by doing anthropology, following Feuerbach in collapsing god-talk into man-talk.
We simply do not have to accept such false dichotomies. It is not the case that some things are purely objective and others purely subjective, or that one must reduce either to the other. Life, fortunately, is more complicated than that.
-N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p.89