74 - Paradigm Change in Theology: A Symposium for the Future

Paradigm Change in Theology:
A Symposium for the Future
Edited by Hans Küng and David Tracy
New York, Crossroad, 1989. 488 pp. $34.50.

In 1980, seventy men and women gathered at the University of Tfibingen to address the question: Is there a basic consensus in Christian theology today, in spite of all our differences? They approached this question in terms of the notion of "paradigm": "an entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on shared by the members of a given community." Their deliberations come fully into print in this volume now, nearly a decade later.

The table of contents well suggests the seriousness of the effort. The firepower of the participants and the pattern of the skirmishing are evident. Preliminary papers by Hans Küng, David Tracy, and Matthew Lamb are followed by historical analyses by Charles Kamnengiesser, Stephan Pfürtner, Brian Gerrish, and Martin Marty. As the symposium proceeded, papers were presented by such persons as Jerald Brauer, Küng, Jürgen Moltmann, Stephen Toulmin, Paul Ricoeur, Schubert Ogden, Eberhard Jüngel, Edward Schillebeeckx, Gregory Baum, Johann Baptist Metz, Langdon Gilkey, John Cobb, and Anne Carr. The volume ends with the fiery sermon on Matthew 8:20 ("Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head") preached by Walter Jens at the closing service.

The discussion seems unsettled. At volume's end, Tracy may make this a principled point in claiming that "a revised correlation model" is a matter of general agreement. This turns out to be a hermeneutical model that eschews certainty "for all is interpretation." Thus the volume's title modestly and appropriately does not claim to announce the new paradigm. The consensus to be sought not only should tolerate, it should expect real differences.

The differences seem clearer than the consensus. Some differences are related to uncertainty about the category of "paradigm." Matthew Lamb notes that Thomas Kuhn has been found to use the term in at least twenty-two different ways and opines that "we have been faithful to Kuhn's own performance." There do seem to be difficulties here. Stephen Toulmin hesitates over the "global" or revolutionary implications

76 - Paradigm Change in Theology: A Symposium for the Future

of some uses of the term. Eberhard Jüngel thinks that adopting this terminology "probably confuses more than it clarifies."

The symposium participants do not seem to agree as to the scope and character of theological paradigm talk. Is the consensus sought a formal one concerning, say, the hermeneutical character of theology, or is there a material theological consensus in view? To say that "several theologies are possible within a single paradigm" seems to suggest both. Perhaps form and content cannot be separated, then, but what range of content is intended? Küng seeks to distinguish macro-paradigms (whole epochs) from meso-paradigms (areas-as the doctrine of the two natures in christology) and micro-paradigms (for individual questions). But Gilkey suggests that it is better to recognize continental or epochal shifts that are more fundamental than the change to which paradigm language is generally applied.

Perhaps Baum is right that "the great majority of theologians" accept a "double fidelity" to the gospel of Jesus Christ and to contemporary, critical self-understanding. Perhaps this is the "revised correlational model" of which Tracy speaks, recognizing that this must encompass a spectrum of possible responses: "either identity (no difference) or analogy (similarities in difference) or even confrontation (mutually exclusive differences)." But then the differences seem clearer than the consensus, as is suggested by Blank's insistence that he represents the unruly Bible, which "refuses to be locked up in any systematic cage," and by the questions and responses of Ogden and Ricoeur to this declaration.

The consensus, then, is not very clear here, or the consensus that can be found does not seem very significant. But there are interesting resonances to be found in the discussion. One such is the emphasis on concreteness as in Kamnengiesser's stress on "the pastoral service of the church," Jossua's concern for narrative or literary theology, and Tracy's declaration that "only the concrete rules." That same sense for the concrete shows up in the frequent reference to the ways in which pollution and nuclear proliferation threaten our future and in the recognition that theology must be "rooted in the painful recognition of the misery to which the vast majority of people are subjected." Similarly, several symposiasts comment on the importance of the shift from the "Eurocentric" and on the ambiguity of what once were touted as signs of the cultural superiority of Christianity.

In his preparatory essay, Ming remarks that in theology as in natural science "the replacement of an explanatory model is generally preceeded by a transitional period of uncertainty in which faith in the established model is shaken, people see through the existing patterns, ties are loosened, traditional schools are reduced in numbers and an abundance of new initiatives compete for a place." If that is what is happening in this time, perhaps a symposium seeking a new paradigm could only be a

77 - Paradigm Change in Theology: A Symposium for the Future

symposium precisely "for the future." Seen as such, it can serve us well exactly through the particularities and multiplicities of the mosaic it presents.

Paul R. Sponheim
Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary
St. Paul, Minnesota