It might surprise some, but one of my favourite works of philosophy is T.S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Not because I agree with everything he says (I do agree with quite a bit, but not all) but I do think he at least offers an empirical explanation of what has happened in the past - even if you decided to reject the possible consequences to an understanding of truth that seem to arise from his theory.
Since reading Kuhn’s work last year, I have wondered how well his theory holds in areas beyond science; particularly theology. This question was once again reawakened this week when reading Adrian Warnock post on Piper’s new book on justification. In that post he said “Men as epoch-shattering as Luther only come along very rarely.”
Kuhn’s theory, briefly and admitingly with a lot of details left out, revolves around the concept of scientific paradigms. A paradigm is the dominate way of thinking on a particular subject. The classical example is the geocentric model. Although there were problems inherit in the theory that were known, there was not a search for a new theory, but a continual attempt to “fix up” the current one. The lack of search for a new theory is partly because it takes a brilliant stroke of insight to break out of a paradigm, but also because those within the paradigm attempt to keep that current paradigm “in power” sometimes knowingly and sometimes passively. Eventually however the problems with the current paradigm become so numerous that someone is able to see them and break out of the paradigm, proposing a new way of looking at the problem. If this new paradigm can better explain the situation then in time a “paradigm shift” will occur where the old one is tossed out and the new one embraced. This is what happened in the shift to the heliocentric model.
It’s been my belief that this is very similar to what happened during the Reformation. The dominate system of the Catholic church’s understanding of justification did make sense of large portions of scripture, however it was clear that it couldn’t explain all of it. Attempts were made to fix it up by various theologians (doctrinal development) but it became increasingly clear that the system itself needed changing. This movement to change things was repressed for a long time, but eventually it was overthrown by the Protestant understanding of justification which became the new paradigm.
There are of course differences between science and theology paradigms. In science the old paradigm falls away and nearly everyone moves to the new one. With theology a large number of people will move to the new one, but the old one often still remains, people unwilling to give up their beliefs. This, I think, is because in science, people are searching for truth, while in theology people are convinced they are having truth delivered to them and therefore makes it much harder to give up a paradigm.
This then brings us back to Adrian’s quote. Could a man like Luther actually arise today? Can the protestant paradigm actually be shattered 500 years after it began to come about and be accepted by protestants? I simply don’t see it happening. If a person was to arise today and directly challenge the protestant understanding of scripture (I’m just beginning to look into N.T. Wright at the moment but am no where near ready to say if he’s doing this) they would not be able to convince a majority of protestants to shift to the new paradigm. I don’t think that there are many protestants who see issues with their understanding of justification yet. Until that happens there will not be a massive paradigm shift and, because we are dealing with theology, it makes it all that much harder for a shift to occur.
Without knowing almost anything about Wright, my question is this: is a paradigm shift necessary? If so, why? If Luther was correct in his paradigm shift (as you seem to suggest), why is that paradigm no longer useful or accurate? After all, Scripture (and its meaning) doesn’t change. If the Reformation got justification by faith alone right (which I contend they generally did), then why do Protestants today need to shift (rather than slowly revise) that theology? Or is this an example of theological postmodernism and relativism: “It was right for Luther, but it is no longer right for us.”
I think that when Joel Olsteen is the most popular preacher in the U.S. we have already had a shift.
Okay, lets assume that Wright thinks that a shift is necessary. I don’t know much about Wright yet (Although his Romans Commentary For Everyone is really good, I’m reading it right now) but I think I might be able to pull off what he would say here and make it work with Kuhn since I’ve seen others argue along these lines that support Wright.
Luther did a great work in opening up a lot of stuff about Paul, however he understood Paul and the Judaisms of the time through his own experiences; particularly his legal understanding. He understood the Judaism that Paul was arguing with as a works based religion because thats what he was dealing with at the time (Catholicism).
So Luther did the best with the understanding of Judaism that was available at the time. However since the time of Luther our understanding of the Judaism that Paul was arguing with has expanded. This has shifted out understanding of Paul’s arguments. It is not therefore that what Luther believed was right for him but something else is right for us (which is a mis-characterization of postmodernism I think), but that Luther did the best with what he had and now we have a better understanding and can do better.
Or as Kuhn would say Luther’s understanding of the facts created a paradigm that fit the facts that he had (and we’ve used ever since), but now as we kept studying it we’ve discovered inconsistencies. We’ve tried to patch them up over time, but Wright thinks that only a new paradigm can solve the problems.
I cannot really go into what Wright thinks on Judaism and such until I’ve worked my way through more of his work. This entry wasn’t really about Wright, except to use him as a jumping point into Kuhn.
Jasen, no serious theologians think anything of Osteen… what we’re discussing is the foundations of Protestant Evangelicalism… Osteen doesn’t have a clue about such things, as he prefers the milk of prosperity.
Bryan… interesting. I’ve been doing a little reading online about Wright and his take on justification by faith. It seems a couple pastors/theologians (besides Piper) who know their ancient languages have shown that Wright is missing the boat by a long shot by misinterpreting what Paul is saying. Wright has a lot of good things to say, but when it comes to justification, he is significantly off-base. I need to do more research, but that is what I’ve found thus far.
What one will have to do is read Wright, understand what he’s saying and then read those who oppose him, then come to a decision on who is correctly understanding ancient Judaism.
Besides Piper’s new book Guy Waters wrote one a few years back now for general audiences entitled Justification And The New Perspectives On Paul. I own this book but when I read it I had no understanding of Wright at all (I was looking for more of an overview of the situation but instead ended up with a polemic bok by mistake). After I read a lot more Wright I plan on going back and re-reading this one along with Piper’s new one.
Everyone must remember that Wright is a world class NT scholar, and his views cannot be simply dismissed without an in depth look. To do so would simply be uncharitable. I’ve heard that Piper’s book does a really good job of taking the time to understand Wright, I’m not sure Waters did.
Yeah, Piper is usually quite solid.
Oh I agree, and 11 of his books on my shelf can prove this
Although I can come across on here as being on the edge of the emerging church, I am well grounded in the Reformed faith through modern authors like Piper, MacArthur, Packer, Horton…etc, and historic writers; Calvin, Berkhof, Edwards…etc.
Darius, I know “no serious theologians think anything of Olsteen.” And Bryan was talking about paradigm shifts from the top down. But they can happen from the bottom up as well.
True, I was not saying you considered Osteen a premier theologian. And considering his popularity, one does have to take his threat seriously. Yet, at the same time, 50 years from now, even if a remnant of prosperity gospel remains, it won’t probably have affected the fundamental doctrines.
It’s like (not quite, but nearly) worrying about what the Mormon church teaches. Serious theologians and Christians don’t care what Mormons teach as far as it could affect Christian doctrine, just like the Dobsons, Swindolls, Pipers, and the like get on with meaty Christianity while Osteen plays in his milk. If Osteen wasn’t so popular in some quarters of Christianity, he would be completely irrelevant. He hasn’t enacted a paradigm shift, since this would mean it applies to the majority (or entirety) of evangelicalism, but rather Osteen is just your garden variety popinjay and a false teacher. Christianity has had many of these throughout its history, and as long as it survives them (which it has and will again), they don’t constitute an actual paradigm shift.
I was interested in your post both because Kuhn’s book was a hot and much-discussed topic when I was a Philosophy major at UCLA some 15 years ago, and also because Wright’s scholarship has dramatically altered the way I view the Christian theology and the Gospel message as a whole. I guess Wright has succeeded in creating a paradigm shift in me, at least.
The thing about Kuhn’s vision of paradigm shifts, one that is often misinterpreted, is that the visionary that propels the shift isn’t necessarily intending to do so. Maybe that’s a bad way of putting it. A better way is to think of it like this. Within all disiplines, there are at any given moment dozens, if not hundreds, of people that are advocating new, revolutionary perspectives. In that sense, they are all seeking to effect a paradigm shift. A paradigm shift, if one occurs, happens not primarily by the efforts of the proponent(s) of the shift, but by the momentum caused by the discipline as a whole as more and more members begin to see that the new perspective better accounts for the data than did old.
In the case of N.T. Wright and justification by faith, Dr. Wright himself would not claim that he is saying anything particularly new about that doctrine. His perspective on the issue grown directly from his overall perspective of viewing the New Testament and Paul as coming from a decidely Jewish worldview, rather than the neo-Platonic, Enlightenment perspective that seems to have dominated biblical exegesis since the Reformation.
My own Blog has a link to a site that features a great deal of Dr. Wright’s unpublished works, including sermon transcripts and audio/video links to lectures, etc. For those interested or curious about Bishop Wright’s perspective, follow the link from www.ParablesOfaProdigalWorld.blogspot.com.
Once again, I really enjoyed your post.