Think tanks are wonderful things. Various and sundry progressive and forward-looking individuals gather to dream, vision, speculate, and critically investigate the world as it is and the world as it might be. Each opportunity I have to participate in such enterprises leaves me enriched, challenged, and exhausted. Thinking is sometimes the hardest work there is to do.

Many of the best think tanks happen by chance rather than by design. Out of one trajectory of thought suddenly emerges something brand new and exciting. Call it chemistry or kismet, miraculously the end result is greater than the sum of the parts. Such was my experience with a group of young adults discussing the current reality of our church as we enter the 21st century.

The topic of discussion was the shift from the Christendom paradigm to a Post-Christendom paradigm. (For a more detailed description of what many refer to as the Christendom and post-Christendom paradigms, see Loren Mead's The Once and Future Church, Alban Institute, 1991.) In the Christendom paradigm, the institution of the church was central. Questions were discouraged, and the doctrine and dogma of the church was rigidly protected. Pastors and priests were afforded great respect and authority, and the inerrancy of the holy writ was never in question. God ruled in the heavens, and all was right with the world.

Post-Christendom ushered in a different view of the church. Suddenly, everything was called into question. Pastors and priests descended to ordinary mortal status, the Bible and the Pope became fallible, and the people of God became the "individual persons of God." Post Christendom deconstructed the Christian church.

Debate has raged concerning the meaning and implications of such a shift. Rarely, however, have questions been raised about the validity of this shift. It has been readily assumed that Post-Christendom has been the natural evolutionary progression of a linear path. But does this tell the whole story?

I listened to the conversations of a half-dozen small groups of five people talk about the current reality of The United Methodist Church. Each group reflected on the impact of the Post-Christendom shift on our denomination. I brought the discussions to an end with the intention of sharing reports in the larger group, when I heard myself say: "You know, whenever I find myself faced with a decision between two options, I try to choose the third. What if the current reality isn't a simple choice between holding onto the Christendom paradigm or embracing the Post-Christendom paradigm? What else is there? What might the third option be?"

Silence fell over the room. Eyes got glassy, then big, and then light bulbs started flashing above a number of heads. Conversation escalated to a dull roar. People leapt to their feet to grab newsprint and markers. We arrived at the 3:00 quit time, and all but two of the participants asked if we could extend the time (something that has never happened to me before — I usually get asked if we can end early!) and continue the discussion. We didn't leave the church building until 8:30.

What follows is a report of our discussion. We drew no conclusions, made no decisions, and didn't examine our results critically. This was a rich time for generating thoughts and ideas. I offer this article to provoke thinking and stimulate discussion. I encourage you to enter the discussion by sending your reflections and reactions to Dan Dick at ddick@gbod.org.

Ultimately, we came up with a third alternative to the Christendom and Post-Christendom paradigms, an explanation of how the third alternative differs from the other two, and reasons why a third alternative emerged. No one disagreed that there is currently a Post-Christendom paradigm. Some said, however, that they believed the Post-Christendom paradigm is one branch of a split from the traditional Christendom paradigm.

During the 1960's and 1970's, a variety of cultural shifts opened the door for traditional Christianity to give ground to a Post-Christian reality. The Kennedy and King assassinations — in the midst of Cold War dis-ease Ᾱ made people feel less safe. Vietnam fueled anger, resentment, and distrust. The Civil Rights movement illuminated our biases and prejudices and taught us that our "good Christian nation" had an ugly un-Christian side. Watergate disillusioned people about government and big institutions. Vatican II changed people's understanding of the church, the Bible, the priesthood, and our relationship to God. The Immigration Act of 1965 opened the nation's gates wider to people from all over the world — people who brought with them a variety of religious beliefs and practices, especially Eastern spiritualities. African spiritualities and practices followed early in the 1970's. Oil embargoes and runaway inflation further demoralized the American public, rocking people's faith. Amid all this unrest, the church experienced radical change.

However, it was not a linear, singular change. The old paradigm did not simply give way to the new paradigm. Instead, a split occurred — and not just a single split. Alongside the prevailing Christian paradigm and the emerging Post-Christendom paradigm was birthed a Neo-Christendom paradigm. Like a split particle, the positively charged Neo-Christendom paradigm has been developing alongside the negatively charged Post-Christendom paradigm. The Neo-Christendom paradigm is not a continuation of the Christendom paradigm, nor is it closely aligned with the Post-Christendom paradigm. It is a unique, valid, third option.

The illustration of the three circles helps to distinguish and differentiate the three different paradigms. The characteristics and definitions belong to our discussion group, and you may find other definitions more helpful and appropriate.Following the numbering in the illustration:

1 — the fundamental attributes shared by all three paradigms
2 — characteristics unique to the Christendom paradigm
3 — characteristics unique to the Post-Christendom paradigm
4 — characteristics unique to the Neo-Christian paradigm
5 — shared characteristics of Christendom and Post-Christendom
6 — characteristics shared by Post- and Neo-Christendom paradigms
7 — common attributes of Christendom and Neo-Christendom paradigms.

Confused? Good, let's continue.

1. Common to all three paradigms is the fundamental belief in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Expressions of belief are different in each, but the Trinitarian model is shared by all. Beyond that, almost everything else is up for grabs.
2. Unique to the Christendom paradigm is the centrality of the institution. The church is the extension of God in the world, and membership in a local congregation significantly defines one as Christian. The Christendom paradigm is steeped in doctrine and dogma, and what we believe is primarily defined by Scripture and tradition. An ordained leadership is required for guaranteed integrity in preaching and teaching and the performance of the sacraments. Questioning is often perceived as a lack of faith, and unconditional obedience is highly regarded. The understanding of God is that God exists outside and is other from creation. God may reside within individuals in the form of Spirit, but God is perceived as "out there" somewhere. Relationship with God is experienced both by the individual and within community. The Christendom paradigm is essentially congregational. A metaphor or image for the Christendom paradigm is that of a prepared meal, all courses planned in advance and served in proper sequence.
3. Unique to the Post-Christendom paradigm is the individual and what the individual can gain from his or her beliefs and relationship with the divine. It is highly personal and privatized. Each person decides for himself or herself what beliefs are necessary or helpful. Beliefs are drawn from a vast variety of sources, and the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures are one resource among many. Faith is defined primarily by personal experience and what makes sense. God — and the divine — is found within. Many sources loudly proclaim, "Know yourself in order to know God." Believers in the Post-Christendom paradigm pull together whatever is helpful in the present moment. Often, they may hold conflicting beliefs and values within short periods of time. Spirituality is ultimately about personal achievement and the attainment of power; and spirit in general applies more to the person's sense of self than an aspect of God. Post-Christendom believers are heavily influenced by New Age thinking that equates spiritual attainment with wealth, popularity, accomplishment, good health, or success. For many traditional Christians, the Post-Christendom paradigm seems threatening and potentially disastrous. A metaphor or image for Post-Christendom is a dessert cart, filled with a variety of wonderful treats, but lacking balance and substance.
4. The upside of our current reality is what our group labeled Neo-Christianity. Unique to this paradigm is the recovery of early Christian images of journey, community, service, and meaning. God is known and better understood through relationships with others. A pervasive sense of larger meaning and purpose drives believers to seek an understanding of what God calls them to do. Faith is defined primarily as that which is reasonable and makes the most sense. Relationship with God is deeply personal, but shared with others. While Neo-Christians draw beliefs and teachings from a variety of sources, the Bible is the primary touchstone by which the purity of all other sources is determined. Neo-Christians pursue an integration of faith, psychology, science, philosophy, and values. Spirit is viewed as a dynamic presence, at work not only within individuals, but within whole groups and communities as well. The Neo-Christendom paradigm envisions a global community — a "kingdom of God" — that excludes no one, but values all regardless of creed or belief system. An image or metaphor for this group is a smorgasbord, where the meal is created anew each time by blending nourishment from a variety of sources.
5. Christendom and Post-Christendom share some common attributes. Each seeks to set parameters and boundaries for "right belief" (orthodoxy), and each seeks both to know what is "right" and to do what is "right." The Christendom paradigm differentiates those who are on the inside of the church from those on the outside. The Post-Christendom paradigm similarly adopts a "take-it-or-leave-it" attitude — those who share beliefs and experiences gather together, excluding those who don&339;t.
6. The Post-Christendom paradigm shares a strong anti-institutional bias with the Neo-Christendom paradigm. Both hold a "question-everything, take-nothing-at-face-value" approach to spirituality. Something is not true simply because an individual or group says so. For both groups, God has not stopped speaking, so the Bible is not the only teaching authority from which we can learn eternal truths. For both models, diversity is a source of strength and promise. We learn more from those who are different than from those most like us. Similarly, all people bring gifts and graces to the table, and an ordained clergy person is not essential to be the church.
7. Shared by Christendom and Neo-Christendom is a deep respect for the liturgical structures of the church. Ritual, shared experience, disciplined spiritual practice, and fellowship are central in each model. While Post-Christians might easily say, "I don't need the church to be a good Christian," members of the Christendom and Neo-Christendom paradigms would disagree.
8. Remember, these distinctions were drawn by one small group of people, one spring Saturday afternoon. For most of the participants in the group, this differentiation reclaimed the positive side of our church's evolution from the negative. Neo- (or new) Christianity is not a threat to our Christian heritage, because the negativity of much that has been labeled Post-Christian has been removed. One member of the group remarked how similar our conclusions were to H. Richard Niebuhr in Christ and Culture — where the Christendom model embraces "Christ Against Culture," the Post-Christendom model espouses "Christ Above Culture," and the Neo-Christendom model promotes "Christ the Transformer of Culture." (See Christ and Culture by H. Richard Niebuhr, Harper & Row, 1951.) Most of the people in our group who defended the Post-Christendom paradigm were over thirty, while those promoting the Neo-Christendom paradigm were under thirty.

The last thing we did as a group was to identify some of the leading voices in each paradigm. Not everyone fits the description of a "Christian" author or leader, but they represent the kind of thinking and believing for each group.

Authors and thinkers in the Christendom paradigm are Pat Robertson, Robert Schuller, Billy Graham, Tim LaHaye, George Barna, William Bennett, Max Lucado, Beth Moore, and Jack Canfield.

James Redfield, Betty Eadie, Deepak Chopra, Gary Zukav, Thomas Moore, and Marianne Williamson speak powerfully to the Post-Christendom mind and heart.

Prominent voices for the Neo-Christendom paradigm include Leonard Sweet, John Shelby Spong, Ken Wilber, Marianna Caplan, and Ezra Earl Jones.

Together, these voices cover the entire spectrum of our Christian current reality. Too much time has been spent debating which is right or best. We live in a time where three basic paradigms contend for the same space. Which will emerge as victor? Probably none of the above. Perhaps a synthesis of all three.

(originally posted August 3, 2000)

Dan R. Dick is a former staff member of the General Board of Discipleship.