Steve Hayes is replying to Steve Hayes, who wrote to All on 16 Feb 98 12:52:07:

 SH> From: "Rowland C. Croucher" <>

 SH> Subject: Major Christian Paradigm Shifts: what were they?

 SH> Date: 9 Feb 1998 22:51:33 -0500

 SH> 

 SH> Hans Kung somewhere writes that there were six major paradigm shifts

 SH> in Christian history. I presume one of them happened at the Protestant

 SH> Reformation. I have a hunch or two about some others...

 SH> 

 SH> And today I believe we're in the middle of a sexual ethics paradigm

 SH> shift...

 SH> 

 SH> Anyone know Kung's suggestions? Any other suggestions?

Here's an old discussion I'd like to try to resurrect...

Bob Braswell suggested that we post some extracts from David Bosch's book "Transforming Mission" (Maryknoll, Orbis, 1991) for discussion. Here goes!

SIX EPOCHS

In discussing the manner in which the Christian church has, through the ages, interpreted and carried out its mission, I shall follow the historico-theological sub-divisions suggested by Hans Kung (1984:25; 1987:157). Kung submits that the entire history of Christianity can be sub-divided into six major "paradigms". These are:

1. The apocalyptic paradigm of early Christianity 2. The Hellenistic paradigm of the patristic period 3. The mediaeval Roman Catholic paradigm 4. The Protestant (Reformation) paradigm 5. The modern Enlightenment paradigm 6. The emerging ecumenical paradigm

Each of these six periods, Kung suggests, reveals a peculiar understanding of the Christian faith. To this I would add that each also offers a distinctive understanding of Christian mission Bosch 1991:181-182).

THE PARADIGM THEORY OF THOMAS KUHN

In a nutshell, Kuhn's suggestion is that science does not really grow cumulatively (as if more and more knowledge and research bring us ever closer to final solutions of problems), but rather by way of "revolutions". A few individuals begin to see reality in a way _qualitatively_ different from their predecessors and contemporaries, who are practising "normal science". The small group of pioneers senses that the existing scientific model is riddled with anomalies and is unable to solve emerging problems. They then begin to search for a new model or theoretical structure, or (Kuhn's favorite term) a new "paradigm", one that is, as it were, waiting in the wings, ready to replace the old (Kuhn 1970:82f). No individual or group can actually "create" a new paradigm; rather it grows and ripens within the context of an extraordinary network of diverse social and scientific factors. As the existing paradigm increasingly blurs, the new one begins to attract more and more scholars, until eventually the original problem-ridden paradigm is abandoned...

The term "paradigm" is not without its problems. It is a slippery concept. Kuhn himself has been charged with using the term in at least twenty-two senses in his major work! In a postscript to this work he defines paradigm as "the entire constellations of beliefs, values, techniques and so on shared by members of a given community".... (Bosch 1991:184-185).

PARADIGM SHIFTS IN MISSIOLOGY

... I hall follow, in broad outline, the sub-division of theology into the periods suggested by Kung: primitive Christianity; the patristic period; the Middle Ages; the Reformation; the Enlightenment; and the ecumenical era. It might also have been possible to follow another division. James P. Martin (1987) divides the history of the church and of theology into only three eras. Kung's second, third and fourth epochs are grouped together and referred to as "pre-critical", "vitalistic" or "symbolic". This is followed by the Enlightenment as the second era, which is characterized as "critical", "analytical" and "mechanistic". The third epoch, now emerging, is described as "post-critical", "holistic" and "ecumenical". Martin's classification has merit, particularly for an understanding of biblical interpretation. Kung's sub-divisions will, however, in my view be a more appropriate tool in trying to discern the evolution of the missionary idea.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS AND POINTS FOR DISCUSSION

(These are just questions that occur to me - others may think of different ones)

1. When Kuhn developed his theory of paradigm shifts in his "The structure of scientific revolutions" he borrowed ideas from the social sciences and applied them to the natural sciences. Social scientists have now been borrowing them back, and claiming that they are more "scientific" because they come from the natural sciences (physics. chemistry, astronomy, biology). How valid is it to apply these ideas to theology?

2. Kung applied Kuhn's theory to theology, and Bosch took it from Kung and applied it to mission and missiology. But in doing this both Bosch and Kuhn reveal a strong Western bias. As an Orthodox Christian I am particularly concerned about the inadequacy of Bosch's treatment of what he calls the "Eastern Church paradigm". Western Enlightenment scholars regarded this as the "Hellenistic" period, and generally show remarkable ignorance of Orthodox theology and mission after the eighth century. So my question is: is not Martin's classification a better one, not just for understanding Bible interpretation, but also for mission? St Nina in Georgia, St Boniface in Germany, St Tekla Haymanot in Ethiopia and St Stephen of Perm in Russia used substantially the same mission methods and operated under substantially the same missiological assumptions, even though they were widely separated by time, geography and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. They were all "precritical", in terms of Martin's classification, but where would they fit in the Bosch/Kung scheme? St Boniface is probably Mediaeval Roman Catholic. But the others? St Stephen of Perm and St Nina of Georgia, could be described as "patristic", but Hellenistic? And as for St Tekla Haymanot ... if he was "Hellenistic" then so are half of the African Independent Churches in Southern Africa!

Keep well,

Steve Hayes E-mail: