Paradigms

Last night I watched this video that documented these 'transformations' that were happening in cities around the world. It was documenting how churches in those cities engaged in spiritual warfare with the occult forces also present. In each case the churches won out purely as a result of prayer. The occult was driven out, and miraclous events and revivals took place. I was skeptical through most of it.

Still, as I wrestled with the video's claims on the way home, I realized something: there was a lot of truth in that video. Yet, I felt like the video oversimplified things to the point of gross error. I thought surely there are hundreds of factors that this video was leaving out. It spoke nothing of politics, economics, climatic/ecological factors, or anything else. This documentary took on a very typical story form (when you hear typical, think of the route-word - type, which implies something that is predictable in plot). The video set up -
the protagonist: Christians
antagonist: Occultic forces
side characters: city government, popular figures, etc.
and the story plays out quite simply - Christians do God's will, praying against the Occult, side characters join in, occult loses, to a certain degree the world is set right. The thing that bothered me is that in all this there were no other factors playing into it. Everything was more or less black and white in this video, and that's where I can't buy it. Most of my experience in the world has revealed that there are multiple takes on all issues, and a plethora of explanations for every event.

So, did this video attributing these extreme transformations that took place in several cities have some truth to it? Were the events in some way determined by the prayer of the churches present in those cities? Was the evil present in those cities directly related to the Occult going on?

I would say on all these: most likely so. Even, emphatically yes.

But . . . .
I don't think that this tells the whole story. I don't think it tells even a majority of the story. I think in all situations there are tons of explanations that are all in some way viable.

When I was driving home last night I started thinking about paradigms. Recently I was brave enough to buy some books that were purely scientific in their discussion. Science fascinates me, but I'm far from being competent in discussing it. But, in all my theological readings I've learned some key scientific names, whose theories have made significant impact on theology. One such guy is named Thomas Kuhn. He basically invented paradigm theory.

Here's the gist:
we are constantly confronted with the experience of our senses, the abstractions of our minds, and the spiritual realm. Imagine that each of these experiences constitute a single star in the sky. Their number is practically infinite. Ultimately, it's good and awe inspiring to look at the night sky, and in the same way that life can be beautiful when we step back and just take it in. But, just taking it in leaves one significant problem: it's all meaningless. Beyond being beautiful the stars also serve to give us direction (at least before GPS systems). The same is true with experience. To just live and let die, is also to go through life aimless and with no ultimate meaning. Ultimately by connecting the stars into patterns and shapes people could use them to find their way. It's the same with facts and experience. They mean nothing until they are connected in such a way as to allow us to find direction and live beyond the current minute and concerns thereof.

This is why there is no such thing as objectivity. Basically, that which is completely objective is also meaningless and therefore not worth anything. Even the driest historical report or most straitforward scientific study is subletly nuanced with subjective data. If they weren't, then in a literal sense, no one would ever read them.

Now when paradigm is used in conversation currently, it most often implies a macroparadigm. This means a paradigm that is shared by a vast majority of people in the world. This is what we are talking about when we say "modernity" or "postmodernity". They are constellations of thought that shape the way a large portion of humanity approaches life.

Here's the thing that Kuhn says about it that I found interesting: Paradigms ultimately are incapable of incorporating all possible data. In other words there is no constellation that can connect all the dots. Every paradigm has to leave out a vast portion of the available experiences and facts, even suppress them, to maintain meaning. Facts that don't line up with the data have to be discounted or explained away. . . . which is what science does with religion, and what overzealous religion does to science.

So, when I watch videos that convey a very simple orientation to what is happening in the world, I can on the one hand appreciate that they are offering a viable explanation. I believe God is at work in those places. I believe he works in response to prayer. I believe that ultimately we need to fight evil in the vast number of forms it come in. I just don't believe that the whole story can be summed up so easily.

I think science too has a constellation that makes a good sense of the facts and experiences of the world. I also find many other religions that I don't like as much as Christianity, but nonetheless, have some siginificant strong points in their paradigms.

And ultimately what I'm coming to understand is that Jesus doesn't pretend to give an all-encompassing paradigm. He gives us parables to start us off, but he doesn't even pretend that he will answer all of our questions. Instead, he gives a foundational structure for one on which there are an infinite number of possibilities to construct further understandings. In that we can say science is good, and that if Jesus is foundational, science is also redeemed. Making it holy, and right. Other religions, at least for me, cannot be foundational, but they can contain truth. Lots of it. I think ultimately Christ provides me with what I need so that I don't have to choose one paradigm over another. I can live with the tension between them, and still hold to Christ as my direction and my meaning. Yet this does not mean that Christianity is a paradigm unto itself. It is beyond that. It seeks to unite what conflicts and bring all things together in the service of the God who prevades all the facts and every experience. I don't think it's simple. Life never is. When it appears simple it is because we are suppressing all that doesn't fit with our preconcieved ideas (paradigm). To open ones eyes to the overwhelming variety of experience in our world, results in a necessary humility toward the decisions of others. It forces us to accept that other interpretations of reality are very much valid.