Here's the rough draft of my intro paragraph:

Following World War I, the Christian missionary movement found itself in a situation filled with uncertainty. The cultural dominance of the West, and along with it the perceived authority of Western Christian missions, took a heavy blow in the eyes of the rest of the world after the smoke had finally cleared from the muddy trenches of the Somme. One of the ways in which this self-inflicted embarrassment manifested itself among missiologists and theologians of the time was an increased critical eye for how Christians have historically and theologically positioned themselves over and against the other religions of the world. Combined with modernism's interest in comparative religious studies and secularism's objectification and demystification of religion in general, this change in outlook brought to the fore the question of the proper Christian response to other faiths. As we have seen from the history of missions over the past century, our answer to this question is of utmost importance, for our answer determines the substance of the human missionary enterprise.

I add a footnote to the end of the paragraph:

I say “human” missionary enterprise in order to distinguish our own flawed and fumbling attempts at witness from the perfect self-revelatory witness of God. Of course, part of the deeper question involved here is what is the nature of the relationship between the two, but this question is outside of the scope of this essay.

Not much to start with, but at least it gives you an idea of where we're heading.

Here's the whole first section...and just to warn you, I've gotten lazy and I'm leaving in the footnote numbers, but not supplying the footnotes, and I haven't worried about adding in the proper HTML for italics and underlines and such:

Following World War I, the Christian missionary movement found itself in a situation filled with uncertainty. The cultural dominance of the West, and along with it the perceived authority of Western Christian missions, took a heavy blow in the eyes of the rest of the world after the smoke finally cleared from the muddy trenches of the Somme. One of the ways in which this self-inflicted embarrassment manifested itself among missiologists and theologians of the time was an increased critical eye for how Christians have historically and theologically positioned themselves over and against the other religions of the world. Combined with modernism's interest in comparative religious studies and secularism's objectification and demystification of religion in general, this change in outlook brought to the fore the question of the proper Christian response to other faiths. As we have seen from the history of missions over the past century, our answer to this question is of utmost importance, for our answer determines the substance of the human missionary enterprise.1

Hendrik Kraemer's response to this question has been one of the most influential and debated responses during the period immediately preceding WWII, and it continues to be relevant even now, considering how many current missiological theories have stemmed from the reactions to Kraemer's controversial thesis.2 This thesis, which Kraemer presented in his book, The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World3, is that the relationship between the Christian revelation revealed to humanity in Jesus Christ and non-Christian religions is one of discontinuity and not of continuity or fulfillment. Kraemer backs up his primary argument of discontinuity with a methodology or concept he coined “Biblical realism”, which implies a very specific understanding of divine revelation. As we will later see, in his two major works of the Tambaram conference (i.e. The Christian Message and “Continuity or Discontinuity”), Kraemer considered an attitude of Biblical realism to be the essential key to arriving at a properly Christian stance towards other religions.

Kraemer's book and his argument for discontinuity met with mixed reviews at Tambaram and in following missiological discussions.4 The academic debate that stemmed from Kraemer's work has often been couched in the terms of natural theology or natural religion. Kraemer's claim that divine revelation and human religion are fundamentally opposed to each other (discontinuous) is usually understood as being synonymous with a rejection of natural theology. This is largely due to the perceived influence Karl Barth's work had on Kraemer's thought. Many similar themes were taken up in the now famous academic duel between Barth and Brunner in which Barth emphatically rejected natural theology, partly on the basis of his understanding of the divine revelation in Christ being absolutely sui generis5—an understanding which Kraemer shares. However, while Kraemer is certainly not blind to the category of natural theology, it is not the issue that he has primarily in mind when he introduces his “solution” of Biblical realism into the conversation.6 Biblical realism has fundamentally to do with how we understand what is recorded in scripture—and it is only from this scriptural stance than we then can derive our understanding of humanity's place in light of God's redeeming acts. While this description of Biblical realism is admittedly simplified, it should still be clear that the connection between this “central concept” and Kraemer's perceived rejection of natural theology is anything but obvious. But a connection surely exists, at least if we are to take Dr. Kraemer seriously in his claim that the way forward in the missiological debate is to “strive after a clearer answer...on the basis of a consistent clinging to the authoritative guidance of biblical realism.”7 Furthermore, Kraemer uses his concept of Biblical realism at length in his analysis and critique of the systematic category of natural theology in The Christian Message.8

To this end, this essay will first strive to clarify what Kraemer means by his term “Biblical realism” by examining how it is applied to questions of revelation and natural theology. Secondly, we will attempt at an explicit description of the implicit relationship between Biblical realism and natural theology as Kraemer develops it. Thirdly, we will consider the opposing voice of A. G. Hogg (one of the chief critics of Kraemer following Tambaram), especially in his criticism of Kraemer's rejection of natural theology, which will guide our final discussion of whether Biblical realism must necessarily result in a rejection of natural theology, as Kraemer seems to imply.