…We are now faced with the very real prospect of being lost in an, unexplored, unexamined, and unknown territory called ‘post-modernism’ the old worldview will no longer do, make no mistake this is not just another fad to scare the Church and then conveniently leave ‘in Jesus name’ and allow us to embrace once again our outdated and sometime infantile understanding, we cant hide under our old ‘comfort’ blankets (like that character in ‘Peanuts’) and pray or plead for a sudden irruption by our supernatural interventionist god. The pride-child of the enlightenment ‘modernity’ and its obsession for anything absolute are now obsolete. Within the new paradigm they are recognized for what they were ‘a romantic view that biblical words were absolute, untouchable
sealed and complete, yet laying dormant, were magically brought to life through propositionalism’. The birthing of this new paradigm has been long and slow and has come about primarily through open dialogue, not a discussion weighed in one direction, not meetings seeking inevitable conclusions, this is ‘an ongoing conversation’ one that is open, not in the sense that anything goes but more a search for authenticity through new symbols, meanings, trusting at the same time that Gods spirit has the capacity to lead us into truth, knowing also that this fourth reformation could very well be a new move of the spirit. At the same time we tread with caution. This conversation has endeavored to reach a consensus on the shape and form and indeed the need for boundary keepers; to remove these is to challenge our whole theological understanding of safety, security our manic need to be right and our subtle yet desperate need for control
The meaning of ‘paradigm’ is to embrace a more comprehensive picture one that is large in the middle yet with soft tapered edges, and dare I say the word! …One that is embracive and inclusive, this word by the way is one of the most misunderstood and feared in the Christian vocabulary (liberals love it fundies hate it and progressives understand it!) even though we deny this strenuously (could it be that we are closet Universalists and are terrified that someone might find out?). I was reminded just two days ago that it is still alive and well; a new student at Tabor asked me the question; ‘do they teach and believe in hell’ this question was a single litmus test on orthodoxy, with the hope that it would bring comfort and assurance to his one dimensional view of scripture, underlying all of this was a fear that our theology would be anything but exclusivist. In 1997 there were reported to be over 20,000 denominations worldwide, many of these denominations remain, due to the hoarding of so-called theological absolutes, and indeed this has brought about the great divide, at all costs they have maintained a romantic yet dated idealism, one that is so aged, ridged and brittle that in due course it my qualify for carbon dating, the general consensus by many of these denominations would be that they had one or a few truths that made them just a little different (read superior!)… But most of us suspect that the language of certainty will always create a divide and bring with it at the same time this manic need to also defend it with the entire theological arsenal, this is modernity exposed. Salvation may be free, but for many, theological certainty will always apply!
To be continued…
Next: What lies at the Heart of this New Paradigm?
*References
Marcus, J. Borg: (2003)‘The Heart of Christianity’ Rediscovering A Life of Faith: HarperOne (Borders Books) www.HarperOne.com
Phyllis, Tickle: (2008)‘The Great Emergence’ How Christianity Is Changing and Why: Baker Books. (Internet only)
I’m going to have to read some of the ‘Borg’. I agree Bob, I don’t think the church has even touched the issues of the God of Relatism. It will be interesting who sits up and takes notice.
Hi Scott,
Thanks for reading my blog, much apprecited ( i’m always a little surpised when people do!)Yes! read Borg by all means, ive got three of his books and find him very refreshing and utterly honest. He is not quite in the same camp as Crossen, Funk or Spong. His view is orthopraxic in nature, and this is the essense of the ‘new’ reformation, this is a difficult place for the old reformation theologians such as D A Carson or Piper, boxed theology will brings with it a sense of familiarity, why not? when you ‘know’ the contents assurance is guaranteed.