dissertation

72
3.2.1 Three Levels of Paradigm
The term ‘paradigm’ is used, often implicitly, in the EMC on three distinguishable levels:
a general ‘macro level’, an intermediate ‘meso level’ and an even more specific ‘micro
level’. 23
On the macro level, the concept of paradigm virtually overlaps with that of worldview.
24 In the words of Brian McLaren, the term worldview can be understood as the
lens through which we view the world: “a lens of assumptions, beliefs, images, metaphors,
values, and ideas that we inherit and construct from our family, our teachers, our
peers, our community, and our culture.” 25 It is paradigm in the sense of a ‘meta-paradigm’
or general (metaphysical) Weltanschauung that most readers take away from
Kuhn’s book. 26 We recognize this close connection between the concepts of paradigm
and worldview in the EMC. For example, Tony Jones discerns a “paradigm shift toward
cultural postmodernism” in Western society, 27 Robert Webber mentions “the shift from
a modern to a postmodern worldview [emphasis added]” as the most formidable challenge
currently facing evangelicals, 28 and Brian McLaren lets his ‘new kind of Christian’
Neo speak about worldview in the following terms: “a working model of reality – a paradigm
[emphasis added], a mental map”. 29 Both paradigm and worldview, then, are
important concepts in the EMC, and sometimes the words are used interchangeably. 30
On a meso level, in the EMC, the term ‘paradigm’ refers to certain beliefs, values and
commitments regarding subjects such as church, leadership, and mission. Some negative
23
These three levels have also been detected in Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. See Douglas Lee
Eckberg and Lester Hill, Jr., “The Paradigm Concept and Sociology: A Critical Review,” in Gary Gutting,
ed., Paradigms & Revolutions: Applications and Appraisals of Thomas Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science (Notre Dame,
IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1980), 118 ff.
24
Cf. Terri Elton, “Paradigms are worldviews, the mega-structures that hold together a greater community’s
shared assumptions.” Terri Martinson Elton, “Leading in the Midst of Change: A Theologically Grounded,
Theoretically Informed Hermeneutic of Change,” Journal of Religious Leadership 7, no. 2 (Fall 2008), 36.
25
Brian D. McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus: Uncovering the Truth that Could Change Everything (Nashville,
TN: WPublishing, 2006), 51.
26
Mark Blaug, “Kuhn versus Lakatos, or Paradigms versus Research Programmes in the History of Economics,”
in Gutting, ed., Paradigms & Revolutions, 140. In Kuhn’s Structure it is especially chapter X, “Revolutions
as Changes of World View,” which suggests the idea that paradigm and worldview denote more or
less the same phenomenon.
27
Tony Jones, Postmodern Youth Ministry: Exploring Cultural Shift, Creating Holistic Connections, Cultivating Authentic
Community (Grand Rapids, MI: Youth Specialties/Zondervan, 2001), 52.
28
Webber, Ancient-Future Faith, 12. Later on this book, Webber dwells particularly on the importance of
paradigm thinking.
29
Brian D. McLaren, A New Kind of Christian: A Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey (San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass, 2001), 32. This quote is from chapter 4, called “What a Difference a Worldview Makes”.
30
When reading EMC literature, one sometimes encounters still other equivalents to the term ‘paradigm’,
such as ‘assumptive framework’, ‘cognitive map’, ‘framing story’, ‘meaning perspective’, ‘metanarrative(s)’,
‘mind-set’, the ‘Constantinian story’, ‘social imaginary’, or ‘systems story’. Our discussion in this chapter
focuses on a discussion of ‘paradigm language’, which is the most widespread. The observations that follow
pertain – mutatis mutandis – to these other terms as well.