dissertation

80
The first caveat that should be given about the use of ‘paradigm language’ within the
EMC is the implicit suggestion of incommensurability. The second caveat is closely related.
If different paradigms are really incommensurable, then communication between the
diverse adherents of them can be difficult, according to Kuhn (and postmodern writers
thinking along this line emphasize ‘language games’ that are incommensurable). This
communication crisis will not be overcome, unless the adherents of the old paradigm are
persuaded, primarily by way of rhetoric, to adopt the new one. This, however, is not a
very likely occurrence, since they cling to their old ways – as we all tend to do. Our paradigms
are precious to us, we tend to defend and protect them when they are challenged.
“This is especially true,” as the missionary anthropologist Charles Kraft explains,
“if we suspect that by changing a certain paradigm, we may run afoul of the opinions of
our group. The potential of a loss of prestige is usually sufficient to keep us in line, especially
if we are feeling socially insecure.” 87 If this is true – and it does sound persuasive –
then there is a danger not only for those who cling to the old (‘modern’, ‘Christendom’,
and so on) macro-paradigm but also for those who have been converted to the new
(‘postmodern’, ‘post-Christendom’) one. The danger is twofold.
3.3.1 Communication Breakdown
The first danger is that one puts less effort into trying to communicate meaningfully
with the adherents of the other paradigm, believing that this is useless anyway. In the
likely event of a communication breakdown, it is easy to point to the other party, saying:
“I told you so; this is because you refuse to give up your paradigm.” In the introduction
to his provocative Mission Mover – a book endorsed by Brian McLaren and Leonard
Sweet 88 – church consultant (and ‘paradigm thinker’) Thomas Bandy tells us of a
presentation he gave to a small group, during which three ‘traditional’ pastors became
so angry that they left the building. 89 Was this because they refused to face the truth?
Of course, this could be the case, as Bandy implies. It is also possible, however, that Bandy
did not try hard enough to reach them in his communication. Could it not be,
among other things, that Bandy’s rhetoric – more specifically, his overstatements and
his free use of metaphors 90 – risks a breakdown in communication with those who prefer
clear and precise arguments?
If we overstate how our thinking is formed and influenced by different paradigms or
traditions, it can lead us to overestimate the difficulties of having productive conversations
and having shared projects with people from other (Christian) traditions. It blinds
us to the similarities we might have and obscures the ways that shared experiences may
87
Charles H. Kraft, Christianity with Power: Your Worldview and your Experience of the Supernatural (Ann Arbor,
MI: Vine Books, 1989), 70.
88
Sweet wrote the afterword and McLaren the foreword to Thomas Bandy, Mission Mover: Beyond Education
for Church Leadership (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2004).
89
Thomas Bandy, Mission Mover, 15.
90
See more on this in chapter 5.