[1] The Sixth Paradigm [R. Holloway--Different Paradigm Shifts in Christianity] - Part 1

Source (in the public domain): http://radicalfaith.org/holloway/sixth%20paradigm.htm

From a talk Holloway gave in May 2003

Accessed: 2020-09-03

 

The Sixth Paradigm  [Different Paradigm Shifts in Christianity]

Richard Holloway (former Episcopal Bishop of Edinburgh)

 

I want to take a glance at the whole of Christian history because one of the things I'd like to get at is this widespread notion that Christianity is or ever has been a single thing.

To do this I'll use a large text, but I want to lead into it by addressing first a very slim text.

One of the most important and influential philosophical texts of the twentieth century was a short book called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions written by an historian of science called Thomas Kuhn. Now Kuhn was a student at Harvard in the 1960s. He was a young physicist and was invited by the President of Harvard to teach a course on the history of science to humanities students who knew nothing about science. He said to himself, "You don't refuse the President of Harvard!"

In his researches and preparing the course he surprised himself. He came across something that he had not hitherto realised was the case. He had a notion of science as a kind of linear activity - a bit like those machines in a coal mine which eat into the coal face - which bites its way through the facts of the universe. He thought of science as a cumulative process in which these facts were gradually laid out.

He discovered that it was in fact a more violent, interruptive activity. Hence the title of his essay. He discovered that science operates by what he called "paradigm revolutions" or "paradigm shifts". He didn't actually coin the word "paradigm" but he did give it a new kind of meaning. He said that the scientific community worked within what it called a paradigm, a constellation of views based on experiment, a world view or set of assumptions that it operated within. This was the going, working science of the time.

The paradigm was operated until it stopped working - that is, until new questions or new discoveries began to collide with the given view. Let me give you a fairly obvious example.

Aristotelian astronomy, upon which the worldview of the entire Bible is based, proposed a three-decker universe with the earth at the centre and all the spheres going round it. The whole idea was that the earth is the centre of the system both physically as well as theologically.

That was the going paradigm. And it still works. The Ptolemaic version of Aristotelian astronomy can still operate for a yachtsperson. You can cross the Atlantic using Ptolemaic astronomy, guiding your boat by the stars. So to that extent it can still be a working paradigm.

But it was overtaken by the great Copernican discovery which was revolutionary because it said, "Ah! The earth is not the thing which everything else goes round. In fact, we go round the sun."

You'll recall the great struggle which then took place. This was because the new paradigm appeared to contradict both the biblical account as well as the going scientific paradigm. Interestingly, it was only fairly recently that the Pope gave the sun permission to be the centre of the solar system.

What happens then is that you get a working set of systems which operates quite satisfactorily until along comes new knowledge, usually discovered by creatures of genius. They begin to ask questions about the old paradigm. Those who use the old paradigm resist the new - and it is entirely right that they should do so. One doesn't want to keep changing a world view which works. It's a confounded nuisance if you're switching paradigms every few years. You need to get traction, a bit of tradition and leverage on the thing.

So you make it work as long as you possibly can. You use it to try to answer the new information which is coming in. There's also in some people a natural kind of conservatism which doesn't like any kind of change. They prefer the going paradigm to anything which is coming down the road. They do so for purely temperamental reasons - but it's also true that the scientific method itself inherently tests new data until it overturns the old. And then you get a paradigm revolution and you move on.

Kuhn's little book has influenced philosophers, culture critics and theologians since the early 1960s. I want to look now at a great text which has applied Kuhn's conclusions about paradigms to Christianity.

The greatest living theologian is Hans Kung, a Roman Catholic. His is the "large text" to which I referred earlier. He doesn't have the Pope's driving licence because he wrote a book in the seventies attacking the doctrine of infallibility and he had his licence to teach withdrawn.

He still teaches theology at Tübingen University but he teaches it in a secular setting (2020-no longer teaching). Quite movingly, he's an old man now and he would like to get his licence back. He'd like to die, as it were, in peace with the Roman Church. But he has been told that he will only get the licence back if he commits to the doctrine of infallibility.

So he will have to sacrifice his conscience to get back inside the Church (which shows you how corrupt churches are). I doubt if he will do that because his whole being has been one of challenge. He's been a sort of Protestant theologian in the midst of Catholicism.

Kung set himself a few years ago an enormous task. He wanted to describe the religious situation of our day. He conceived three volumes - one on Christianity, one on Judaism and one on Islam (2020-they are all published).

He applies paradigm theory to religion. He says that contrary to what we all think, religion has been a story of shifting paradigms - an essentially dynamic, changing enterprise.

I want to race through his application of paradigm theory to Christianity. He says there have been five Christian paradigms. As we'll see, these paradigms are all still in operation. In science, new paradigms succeed, complete and often oust those that came before. In Christianity, religious paradigms never seem to get discarded or superannuated. They simply get stacked up like trays in the trolleys of self-service restaurants.

The Pope Francis Interviews: Some Things that Strike Me

I’m following rather closely how Pope Francis’ papacy is unfolding. After all, last February in an online article (here), I prophesied that Pope Ratzinger’s resignation might bring about great changes.

The other day, I finally found the time to read in their entirety the two interviews of Pope Francis that have been creating a lot of buzz lately.

Interview for Jesuit periodicals <http://www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview>

Interview with Eugenio Scalfari, founder of the Italian newspaper La Repubblica <http://www.repubblica.it/cultura/2013/10/01/news/pope_s_conversation_with_scalfari_english-67643118/?ref=HRER3-1>

My overall reaction is very, very positive. After having written a very critical evaluation of the long tenure of Joseph Ratzinger (as prefect of the CDF and pope) last February (here), I was not expecting such a drastic shift of style of being pope in such a short while from this remarkable pope from Argentina. The Holy Spirit can sure pull some surprises!

Francis has proven himself to be a thorough “Gaudium et Spes” pope. That is to say, he embodies the so-called spirit of Vatican II as expressed in the Pastoral Constitution of the Church to the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) in which it encourages the whole church to walk with people today in all their joys and sorrows. I make mine the reflections of my favourite theologians, Leonardo Boff, in his blog because I practically agree with all of them because they are also the thoughts that I have on Francis’ papacy so far.

from Leonardo Boff <http://leonardoboff.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/with-pope-francis-the-third-world-has-come-to-the-vatican/>

With Pope Francis, the Third World has come to the Vatican

Leonardo Boff

Theologian-Philosopher

Earthcharter Commission

There is broad awareness of the many innovations that Pope Francis, the Bishop of Rome, as he likes to be called, has introduced in papal behavior and in his style of presiding over the Church, with tenderness, comprehension, dialogue and compassion. More than a few are perplexed, because they were accustomed to the classic style of the popes, forgetting that it is a style handed down from the pagan Roman emperors, from the name «Pope» to that richly adorned cape on their shoulders, the muceta, the symbol of absolute imperial power, which Francis promptly rejected.

We must remember once again that the present Pope comes from the periphery of the central European Church. He has a different ecclesiastical experience, with new customs and with a different way of experiencing the world and its contradictions. As he consciously expressed it in his lengthy interview with the Jesuit magazine, Civilta Catolica: «The young Churches have developed a synthesis of faith, culture and the life hereafter, which therefore is different from that developed by the older Churches». They are not characterized by change, but by stability and it is hard for them to incorporate new elements coming from the modern secular and democratic culture.

Here Pope Francis emphasizes the difference. He has the consciousness that he comes from a different manner of being Church, which has matured in the Third World. The Third World is characterized by profound social injustices, by the absurd number of favelas, shanty towns, that surround almost every city, by the always despised native cultures, and by the legacy of slavery shadowing the afro-descendants, who are subjected to great discrimination. The Church understands that, besides her specific religious mission, she cannot avoid her urgent social mission: to stand with the weak and oppressed, and to struggle for their liberation. In several gatherings the Bishops of the Latin-American and Caribbean continent, (CELAM), developed the preferential option for the poor in challenging their poverty, and the liberating evangelization.

Pope Francis comes from this ecclesiastical and cultural breeding ground. Here, in the Third World, these options, with their theological reflections, with their form of living the faith in community networks and with celebrations that incorporate the popular style of praying to God, are obvious matters. But they are not so for Christians of the old European Christianity, who are filled with traditions, theologies, cathedrals and a sense of the world impregnated with the Greek-Roman-Germanic culture in the articulation of the Christian message. Because the Pope comes from a Church that gave centrality to the poor, he first visited the refugees in the Isle of Lampedusa, continued with the Jesuit center in Rome, and then the unemployed in Corsica. It is natural for him, but it is almost a «scandal» for the Roman curia, and unprecedented to other European Christians. The option for the poor reaffirmed by the last Popes was purely rhetorical and conceptual. There was no real encounter with the poor and with those who suffer. Francis does exactly the opposite: the good news is affective and effective praxis.

Perhaps these words by Francis clarify his style of living and of seeing the mission of the Church: «I see the Church as a field hospital after a battle. It is useless to ask a gravely wounded soldier if his cholesterol and blood sugar are high. First the wounds must be healed, then we can talk of the rest». «The Church, --Pope Francis continues--, often focuses on small things, on petty precepts. The most important, much better, is to first announce: "Jesus saved you". For this, the ministers of the Church must in the first place be ministers of mercy. The structural and organizational reforms are secondary, that is, they come later. Therefore, the first reform must be the reform of attitude». «The ministers of the Gospel must be capable of warming people's hearts, of walking with them in the night, knowing how to dialogue, and also being able to enter their night, their obscurity, without getting lost». «The people of God –Pope Francis concludes– want pastors, not functionaries or clerics of the State». In Brazil, talking to the Bishops of Latin America, the Pope tasked them with forging a «revolution of tenderness».

Therefore, centrality is not given to doctrine and discipline, so dominant lately, but to humans, and their searches and inquires, be they believers or not, as Pope Francis showed in his dialogue with Eugenio Scalfari, the former editor of the Roman daily, La Repubblica, who himself is a non-believer. These are new winds that blow from the new peripheral Churches, touching the whole Church. Spring is really coming, filled with promises.

In a sense, the ‘Scalfari’ interview impressed me more because there Francis was talking with a professed non-believer and making points that, he hopes, are more universally valid.

In the Jesuit interview, what particularly struck me was Francis’ immediate reply to the question about what Ignatian principle helps him in his papal ministry: discernment. Of course, let me let Francis speak for himself:

QUESTION: What does it mean for a Jesuit to be elected pope? What element of Ignatian spirituality helps you live your ministry?”

“Discernment,” he replies. “Discernment is one of the things that worked inside St. Ignatius. For him it is an instrument of struggle in order to know the Lord and follow him more closely. I was always struck by a saying that describes the vision of Ignatius: non coerceri a maximo, sed contineri a minimo divinum est (“not to be limited by the greatest and yet to be contained in the tiniest—this is the divine”). I thought a lot about this phrase in connection with the issue of different roles in the government of the church, about becoming the superior of somebody else: it is important not to be restricted by a larger space, and it is important to be able to stay in restricted spaces. This virtue of the large and small is magnanimity. Thanks to magnanimity, we can always look at the horizon from the position where we are. That means being able to do the little things of every day with a big heart open to God and to others. That means being able to appreciate the small things inside large horizons, those of the kingdom of God.

“This motto,” the pope continues, “offers parameters to assume a correct position for discernment, in order to hear the things of God from God’s ‘point of view.’ According to St. Ignatius, great principles must be embodied in the circumstances of place, time and people. In his own way, John XXIII adopted this attitude with regard to the government of the church, when he repeated the motto, ‘See everything; turn a blind eye to much; correct a little.’ John XXIII saw all things, the maximum dimension, but he chose to correct a few, the minimum dimension. You can have large projects and implement them by means of a few of the smallest things. Or you can use weak means that are more effective than strong ones, as Paul also said in his First Letter to the Corinthians.

“This discernment takes time. For example, many think that changes and reforms can take place in a short time. I believe that we always need time to lay the foundations for real, effective change. And this is the time of discernment. Sometimes discernment instead urges us to do precisely what you had at first thought you would do later. And that is what has happened to me in recent months. Discernment is always done in the presence of the Lord, looking at the signs, listening to the things that happen, the feeling of the people, especially the poor. My choices, including those related to the day-to-day aspects of life, like the use of a modest car, are related to a spiritual discernment that responds to a need that arises from looking at things, at people and from reading the signs of the times. Discernment in the Lord guides me in my way of governing.

“But I am always wary of decisions made hastily. I am always wary of the first decision, that is, the first thing that comes to my mind if I have to make a decision. This is usually the wrong thing. I have to wait and assess, looking deep into myself, taking the necessary time. The wisdom of discernment redeems the necessary ambiguity of life and helps us find the most appropriate means, which do not always coincide with what looks great and strong.”

The underlined parts above (my emphases) clearly show that Francis is not working with a ‘dogmatic’ mentality but is well aware of the ambiguity and contextual character of real life - this is why, he thinks, discernment is so important. Truly Remarkable!

I continue to monitor this remarkable man and this exciting papacy closely ...