The slogan ‘Paradigm shift’ was the cool jargon of the Church growth movement of the early 1990’s. Interestingly the actual idea of the ‘Paradigm shift’ was introduced by a Harvard Professor called Thomas Kuhn in the 1960’s regarding to how ideas have changed science. His basic premise was that the new paradigm does not take hold until the existing one is first demonstrated to be completely and totally inadequate and bankrupt. It works smoothly in science because theoretical constructs are easier to dismember than institutional ones - and the cracks are harder to hide! Below I have quoted Kuhn, but where he says Science I have changed it to Christianity.
(Christianity) is "a series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions” which he described as "the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal (Christianity)." After such revolutions, "one conceptual world view is replaced by another".
An older paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by an incompatible new one. But the new paradigm cannot build on the preceding one. Rather, it can only supplant it, for "the normal-(Christian) tradition that emerges from a ( Christian) revolution is not only incompatible but actually incommensurable with that which has gone before." Revolutions close with total victory for one of the two opposing camps.
If this worldwide shift towards millions and millions of Christians world wide to once again move towards the beliefs, functions and forms of Pre – Constantine Christianity, is truly a paradigm shift, or a transformation of peoples’ faith (or even possibly a continuation of an uncompleted reformation), then in light of Kuhn’s theory, this emerging paradigm and the current cultural / institutional paradigm will oppose each other.
At this time, I do believe this to be true’. An example of a paradigm shift that I have had to make which is a direct threat to the cultural / Institutional church is that of Christian Giving.
At the beginning of my journey into this new form of Christian living, I was struck (somewhat negatively) by the prolific amount of writings against the theology of tithing. Even though I have come to agree with what they write, I fear at times, that some readers might just conclude that such writings are authored by tight fisted and bitter believers! There seem to be many other issues that could be written about, yet the most common topic is tithing.
Just recently, I think, I have begun to grasp the significance of this topic to the organic ‘paradigm’. If the system of tithing is broken, then two other major areas of concern are naturally exposed: the relevance of professional clergy, (no regular tithe = no regular salary), and the possession of buildings and other assets (a mortgage requires a reliable ‘income’ of money).
“The New testament church was a body of believers that came together regularly. The meetings occurred spontaneously within the houses of the believers. Therefore, no precedent was established to indicate how a latter-day, asset-oriented church infrastructure was to support itself. Faith offering are fine, but somewhat unreliable, erratic and ungovernable. An institution that has a consistent and regulated expenditure requires a constant and reliable source of income.” Kearney, Shaun The Counterfeit Church (self published, www.kingdomline.com)
My point here is not to argue against tithing but to point out that the idea of tithing and New Testament giving are in direct and powerful conflict. They cannot live in harmony with each other. A Church full of believers who do not tithe or give a regular tithe but give alms to the poor and needy, and faith offerings as the Holy Spirit leads, is going to have to be completely changed in form and functions to thrive (just think of the budget changes). Both paradigms and their practitioners oppose the others viewpoint as wrong, inerrant and dangerous. The clash of paradigms and the culture and systems that develop them is what revolution and reformation is about. Of course there are other ideas which we do not have time to cover such as paradigms about the rights and wrongs of professionalized Clergy, the accumulation of property and the habit of synagogue worship which are all ideas that if held with conviction are not going to be able to live in harmony with status quo faith for any length of time.
