A MANY SPLENDORED THING
The way we were taught to "think" is proving
wrong. A new awareness is transcending the "logic" of the past and
will forever change the church—for the better! The leaders of the
future are already violating the boundaries of conventional learning
and language and replacing outmoded proofs of Truth.
And, as modern theologians discover the
disconnect between traditional thinking and the postmodern world,
they are finally admitting they are no match for God’s mystery.
It’s a moment when modern minds go mad. Yet, new
ways of thinking—with the mosaics, multiples, and metaphors of
tomorrow—have more in common with the origin of our faith than with
the traditions of our culture.
For more, read on:
"Get to the point."
That’s what we’ve been doing! And there’s the
rub. In our obsessive analysis of every final point, we have
severed, separated, and sorted all things. We have torn apart, taken
apart, and pulled apart even those things that don’t come apart.
We’ve divided to conquer . . . dissected to
In fact, our assumed certainty has propelled our
linear, logical world. But even the logical world has warned us:
"Crisis" comes from the ancient Greek krino, which means "to
evaluate, judge, or decide." So, prophetically, our way of thinking
has also become our crisis.
In fearful uncertainty, we replaced all the
quandaries of life with preordained answers. We shoved all prophetic
metaphors into dictionaries of dead clichés.
And, we hammered all the mysteries of faith into politically correct
and "user-friendly" ideas.
In short, we turned life into a closed book.
REASONS OF THE HEART
Yet, life is not a closed book!
Uncertainty, unpredictability, and ambiguity
endlessly invade both natural and spiritual worlds. This quandary is
not all bad, for "Gracious uncertainty is the mark of a spiritual
life."1 Even so, we continue searching for the one pot of
gold at the end of the rainbow, while God warns, "I am the rainbow."
We divide to conquer, while Scripture insists "In Him all things . .
. are held together."2 We seek progress in the parts,
while God transcends the parts . . . and the sum of the parts!
Let’s be honest. No theology has tamed the
wildness of the spiritual frontier. The control we crave is an
illusion. No matter how many angels we claim dance on the head of a
pin, scholarship is no match for God’s mystery.
So we keep bumping into mystery and wondering
why. Often, our reflections discover a deeper knowing in humor than
in reported facts. Frequently, our dreams find more creative links
in unreality than in reality. And usually, our visions awaken more
from encounters outside our "box" than in obedience within the
Let’s face it. Some things elude precise
description or definition. Some events—especially bizarre
realities—embarrass our rational minds. And some events are so
mind-boggling that we can only intuit the sense, the gist, the tenor
of their significance.
In the words of Blaise Pascal, these are "reasons
of the heart, for which reason knows nothing." Someday, we will
realize that ordinary experience stands mostly on metaphor. In other
words, "Life is neither the candle nor the wick, but the burning."3
"Too often the doctrinal theologian is the man who
does not know what he is talking about."4
AMBIGUITY IN ART
We’re more willing, though, to know something
"different" in the arts . . . something disarming . . . something
mysterious. In the strange zone between medium and message, the arts
invade our orderly world with cryptic poignancy. Rich in ambiguity,
they do not provide precise ideologies or definitive points of view.
Artists, for example, do not quickly label their
works with exact meanings. In fact, we easily offend artistic
spirits when demanding premature interpretations. In an interview,
the artist Wayne Thiebaud was asked, "What does your picture mean?"
He replied, "I don’t know and I don’t want to know."5
That’s because artists transcend "correct" ways
of thinking. Instead, they see a world teeming with links,
minglings, continuities . . . just the way the brain works! Further,
their art requires a nonrational, nonlinear, nonscientific sense for
its power—a sense that lies deeper than "proper" thought.
Finally, of course, we are all artists. We’ve all
known "eureka" moments. We’ve all known luminous revelation that
glares so brightly that it hides as much as it reveals. True
creativity, after all, brings both blindness and insight. You can’t
have one without the other.6
After all, artists—like prophets—see only "in
"It’s my fervent belief that when a sermon is
truly effective, no one will be able to put into words what it
A CULTURE OF PARADOX
Today, history perilously widens this disconnect
between traditional thinking and a new awareness. The leaders of the
future are violating the boundaries of conventional learning and
language, and their violations are proving their credibility.
The likely leaders of the coming age are
abandoning an "either/or" world and embracing an "and/also" world.
Their tastes are turning from specific ideas to profound patterns.
For a new proof of Truth ignores the logical, linear rules of
yesterday and embraces the mosaics, multiples, and metaphors of
More often, we travel an "information-scape" of
endless links rather than one-way cul-de-sacs. In short, we are
learning to generate information the way the mind generates
At the same time, most of us still partly hold to
the past, so we share the sense of moving to the very edge of
knowing. This place is like standing on the shoreline between a
small island and the endless sea. Yet, we like the sea. We find
pleasure in a new play of the senses . . . in the sudden knowing of
a timorous intuition . . . in the long dormant unity of mind and
Amazingly, the young—whether in age or
spirit—feel at ease with not knowing the things beyond knowing. They
welcome, for example, an ominous open-endedness. They willingly act
as clean slates where events write on them rather than their writing
on events. And they possess an amazing tolerance for contradictions
. . . inconsistencies . . . ambiguities. . . .
It’s a culture of paradox.
Yet, in this "not knowing," they show an innate
affinity with altered futures and changing relations. Their fluid
and eclectic lives reveal belief in a dynamic and spontaneous
universe . . . a "big picture" of endless connections.
They are in love with something "out there."
Their language, their symbol system, faithfully
mirror these realities. That’s why they plunge into dialogues of
disguise (art, metaphor, virtual reality. . . .). Of course, that’s
also why they prefer cut-and-paste values, hybrid theologies, and a
banquet of differing spiritual perspectives.
Still, their indefinite thinking remains
incarnational thinking. They become their stories. And their
envisioned world will doubtless become "reality."
A CONSPIRACY OF CHANGE
Technology takes part in this conspiracy of
change. Of course, the technologies of the past have always
transcended their parts. "When the elements of an invention are
assembled in just the right way, they produce an enchanting effect
that goes beyond the mere parts."9 But today’s technology
goes further. It is more a chrysalis of culture than an invention of
parts. And, as expected, it appeals to new thinkers . . . creative
types . . . iconoclasts. . . .
Yet, this technology is more than a stylish trend
for the disaffected few. It will change the way all of us think. It
will change the whole world.
In our time, for example, knowledge-creating
tools have advanced faster than knowledge-processing tools. In other
words, we have more data than we know how to handle. We have more
information than we know how to manipulate. So, urgently, we seek to
filter this unwieldy mass . . . to make sense of this overload data
. . . to interpret, translate, context, and guide this awesome
The computer answers our urgency. It brings order
to disorder, unity to disunity. It stitches the frayed fabric of
byzantine data and sews a semblance of purposeful coherence. Yet, we
have failed to see an even greater event—though historian McLuhan
had already made it known: "Information overload leads to
The computer opens us to the world of pattern.
A BIGGER PICTURE REALITY
With the computer, we see a multiplied world
where "windows" open onto other windows, choices open onto other
choices, and viewpoints open onto other viewpoints. This rhetorical
robot expands our thinking, rather than narrowing it. It makes our
notions fluid and dynamic, rather than fixed and static. And—on the
epic, endless World Wide Web—it playfully messes with our
expectations, keeps us guessing, pushes the envelope.
It does not ignore a future world to pacify a
Instead, it "links" to true associations, not
mere random encounters. When it jettisons us across the Earth, we
find near addresses, not separate subjects. It doesn’t ask us to
"follow the dots," it asks us to "connect the dots." And, rather
than "surfing," it is more like walking a contemplative trail—a
transient trail marked by connecting branches, rushing streams, and
Notice, this new idiom begins and ends with space
metaphors—"cyberspace," "information space," "windows," "the World
Wide Web". . . . This is key, for spatial metaphors enlarge our
thought, augment our thought. They reveal a "bigger picture"
reality. We see this in the shift from linear "thinking and typing"
to the visual interface of "menus and metaphors."
A MUTATING LINGO
As a result, something deep begins to happen at
the level of language. Something unlike anything before. We don’t
even have a word for it.
Still, we see the rules of language changing . .
. the grammar and syntax of our lingo mutating. The first new form
of punctuation in centuries, for example, emerges as
"hypertext"—those links that hover over highlighted words with an
enticing innuendo, a conjunctive role, and a synthetic slang.
What can we say? Language will simply differ.
Virtual realities, multiple metaphors, endless endnotes, deliberate
disguises, and slippery translations will morph our messages with
gleeful irreverence for the "proper" rules of the past.
Consider, for example, a language without verbs!11
Why? Because this language of likeness explores continuities and
connections rather than fixed identities and definitions. In other
words, the subject and predicate are the same. Here, we can’t ask,
"Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?" for they mutually and
simultaneously require each other!
Old, grey-headed men will claim we’ve gone mad.
For virtual reality will replace old reality. Daring proofs of Truth
will replace outmoded proofs of Truth. Fresh streams of musings will
replace dead pools of ponderings, half-memories will replace
hackneyed memories, and epiphanies will replace propositions.
Truly, our most credible communications will
resemble what we have called "contemplation." This passage will not
seem so impossible. In this new interface of language, we will learn
by doing. And my, how we will learn! We can’t imagine how far this
new language will have traveled by the end of the century.
We can imagine, however, already improved
aptitudes for seeing more than one thing at a time . . . for seeing
Truth and reality through "mosaics," "multiples," and "metaphors."
It’s no accident we call today’s youth "mosaics."12
They easily move within patterns of meaning, kaleidoscopes of
consciousness, and webs of relationships. And their arts reflect the
same. We can’t reduce their films, for example, to one literal
meaning. We can’t shrink them to a single summary. We can’t scale
them down to rigid rules.
Because their arts exist in a realm of patterns
not reliant on interpreters. Their films reveal an "is-ness" . . .
an existence prior to interpreting. Even the artists who "created"
these films are not the creators. They are only the discoverers.
And, amazingly, many theologians have caught the
spirit of these youthful mosaics. Rather than forging collections of
isolated facts to enhance school libraries, theologians are seeking
"a mosaic of interrelated beliefs" to enhance searching hearts.13
In other words, they are thinking in new ways. They are replacing
predetermined propositions with open-ended connections, patterns,
links, and associations.
In the new theology, for example, "Each belief is
supported by its ties to its neighboring beliefs and, ultimately, to
the whole." Credibility comes when "problematic beliefs are closely
tied to beliefs that we have no good reason to call into question."14
So confidence grows as a growing number of separate beliefs confirm
In other words, the theology of the future
emerges from "a web of significance" . . . "a mosaic of beliefs" . .
. "a system, not of truths, but of truth."16
The import is huge! When whole systems and their
parts—including us!—mutually determine one another, the role of
divine action takes on an entirely new dimension.
Of course, thinking in "mosaics" or "patterns"
implies thinking in "multiples"—seeing several things at once. And,
this perceiving sees a role in our future as well.
What shall we call this awareness? Multiple
musings? Concurrent thoughts? Manifold reflections? Eclectic . . .
plural . . . or diverse awareness? Whatever we call it, it’s
"simultaneous"—several sources of information, levels of perception,
and layers of meaning occurring at the same time . . .
. . . even among things that don’t go together.
Welcoming this awareness, our thoughts expand in
all directions . . . we take in everything at once . . . we "read"
endless phenomena simultaneously. These are meditative,
broadly-focused, open-ended sensitivities to things beyond our usual
world. They leave behind the older, "proper" thought of focused and
fixed identities that "get right to the point."
Today’s youth show amazing talents in this trend
toward multiple thinking. They can take in more information in less
time and with less confusion than their elders. They can do their
studies, listen to television, talk with someone, and eat a burger
all at the same time. In other words, they can absorb diverse data
without focusing on one thing to the exclusion of others.
That’s why they’ve learned to experience truth
rather than just talk about it.
Of course, the arts mirror the same multiple
world. Music, for example, births from multiple levels of import . .
. meanings on top of meanings . . . moods on top of moods. And these
sounds demand our attention on several sensory levels at once.
That’s why the best music seldom wears out. That’s why increasing
the number of voices—adding more ambiguity to the
polyphony—increases the depth of the message. And that’s why
performers usually find room for multiple renderings.
Of course, literal minds struggle with the
"problem" of multiple interpretations, especially conflicting
interpretations. But this is no problem. Art does no speak a single
summation. It generates meaning from never-ending connections . . .
swarming associations . . . kindred signs
After all, no one interprets verbatim vision.
Even when divinely inspired, "We know (only) in part, and we
prophesy (only) in part."17 Still, that part is a
truthful part of a universal whole.
Three hundred years ago, Gottfried Wilhelm von
Leibniz described seeing the same village from several, nearby
hills. Though the views gave infinite, multiple perspectives, he
reminds us the city remained the same.
So it is with art. So it is with multiple
Finally, thinking in "multiples" often brings
side-by-side absurdities—comparing things that simply can’t be
compared. In place of peaceful patterns, multiple awareness often
contrasts troubling differences.
This is the moment when modern minds go mad. Yet,
our culture will soon speak this disturbing language of paradox, and
the resulting "absurdities" will become the dominant currency of
thought, the lingua franca of both meaning and reality.18
When truly inspired, we may call it "prophetic
Whether words, sounds, images, movements, or
events, the interface between things that normally don’t coexist
evokes the power of metaphor. This is not the metaphor, however, of
mere colorful language or clever ideas. Instead, it is a "prophetic"
metaphor that infuses all we do . . . that creates the extraordinary
within the ordinary. It is "cross-modal," for example, comparing
sounds to smells, images to ideas, emotions to movements. . . .
Yet, the secret of these nonliteral similarities
is neither one thing nor another . . . neither difference nor
resemblance. Instead, it is the tension between them . . . the
suspense in their reciprocal relation . . . the risk in their
rapport. And through this chance venture, metaphor declares
fascinating mystery and terrifying power—often at the same time!
It’s a strange communion of parallel—yet
We continue to forget, though, that the deepest
metaphor is neither an ornament of speech, an intrusive rabbit
chase, nor the invention of clever linguists. It is neither an
intellectual skill, a philosopher’s trick, nor a tool of ideology.
And it is neither deformed reality, distorted reality, nor surreal
It is, instead, incarnational language of the
purest form. It exists in us before described. Yet, it exists
outside us once described.19 For its universal Truth
transcends us, the metaphor itself, and the culture that gives rise
Postmodernists are wrong. Metaphor is not a
failed language, and it never will be.
"Mosaics," "multiples," and "metaphors" have more
in common with the origin of our faith than with the modern
traditions of our culture. That’s because the early church fathers
lived in a different culture—an oral culture. Instead of creating
precision through reason . . . marketing truth as processed ideas .
. . and building confidence with objective "distance," they pursued
reality with a meditative, circular dialogue.20
They based their language on "power," not logical
That’s why their "Word" always linked to a larger
pattern . . . a greater mosaic. That’s why their Scripture always
described a relational truth. That’s why the "fruit of the Spirit"
always proved itself in relationships. And that’s why Paul wrote,
"In Him all things consist (cohere, are held together)."22
The Christian message is not something we
objectively accept or reject. It is not something done to us or
imposed on us. It is not a linear, narrow, content-laden proposition
that appeals to select groups. Instead, the Christian message is
contextual . . . it relates to the "bigger picture" . . . it
reflects Truth in patterns.
It offers a context in which we interact with
Those early Christians who shared this message
were not simply reflecting their culture. They were speaking
transcendent revelation. And transcendent revelation always pulls
things together. It always reveals portions of a Universal Truth . .
. a Universal mosaic.
The fathers of our faith also thought in
In many separate revelations [each of
which set forth a portion of the Truth] and in different
ways God spoke of old to [our] forefathers in and by the
Of course, multiple revelations also mean
multiple meanings. After all, patterns provide multiple entry points
and exit points. There’s not just one door.
We see this most clearly in Hebrew meditation. It
is a whirling, revolving reflection, yielding multilayered meanings.
It graciously refuses the modern idea of "getting right to the
point." Indeed, it claims no final point. It always remains
open-ended. It always seeks newer levels of significance.
Hebrew meditation, then, reflects a nonlinear
approach to wisdom. It is dynamic, self-propelling and moves with
apparent (or "virtual") random. It will seem miraculously suited to
the minds of the future.
Yet, today’s church leaders assume the same word
says the same thing to every person. This, of course, is a modern
fallacy. Hebrew "Words" were not precise signs pointing to precise
definitions. They were not literal recipes of strict and exact
meanings. Instead, their words were "Spirit," like the wind that
nobody traces or follows where it goes.
Still, faith always relates reality back to its
source. It always relates our experience back to a justifying
principle. True faith, in other words, is always a "present quality"
that recalls something unseen.
So the unseen must be symbolized.24 It
must be "represented" through the mystery of metaphor.
Though not reality itself, metaphor becomes the
most profound medium of reality.25 In other words, to the
ancient faithful, metaphor was not something unreal.26 It
was, instead, a tangible link between the temporal order and an
ultimate transcendent order.27
It pointed convincingly to pristine origins.
Metaphor, however, poses a problem for modern
minds. Metaphor confronts those who want to know "the facts" with
not knowing. It remains—now and then—cryptic and enigmatic. Even
biblical prophets often puzzled over what they proclaimed. The
disciples found trouble with Jesus’ parables. And Peter complained
when Paul wrote things too hard to explain.28
We tend to agree. Why not "get right to the
point"? Why all this subterfuge?
Because "A sacred text must be ambiguous if it is
to be meaningful to different persons at different times and in
different places."29 With so many listeners—and different
types of listeners—true revelation must bypass the natural mind and
speak directly to the heart.
Nevertheless, the Gospel of Mark brings good news
to those who need to know:
[Things are hidden temporarily only as a
means to revelation.] For there is nothing hidden except to
be revealed, nor is anything [temporarily] kept secret
except in order that it may be made known.30
So metaphor is a temporary "means to revelation."
It is basic to the Bible. Hosea said that God speaks to us through
damah, meaning "a comparison of likeness."31
(Today, we would call it "prophetic metaphor.") That’s why the
prophets were artists of analogy and affinity . . . virtuosi of
similarity and similitude . . . creators of comparison and contrast.
And that’s why Jesus often left the meaning of a story hanging in
the air, as if to say,
And prophetic metaphor didn’t stop there.
Consider the wild absurdities of Paul: "Joy is in your sufferings!"
"Power is in your frailty!" Throughout his writings, he places
together endless pairs of paradox: weakness and strength,
foolishness and wisdom, poverty and riches, shame and honor, slave
and free, suffering and comfort, frustration and glory. . . .
Today, however, we overlook this radical and
revolutionary language. It is not the familiar Scripture of cautious
seminaries. It is not the logical language of the modern world. It
is, instead, the prophetic metaphor of a lost past and the virtual
reality of a coming future.
Do multiple interpretations mean we’ve lost
universal Truth? Do conflicting meanings mean we’ve lost the
authority of Scripture? Does hidden revelation mean we can never
hope for perfected faith?
Many church leaders demand the "inerrancy" of
Scripture. They insist on its "infallibility." For them, the Bible
is a storehouse of facts that accurately describes reality, and all
we have to do is figure out the facts. Regrettably, this thinking
reflects the needs of the modern mind more than the intentions of
the biblical prophets.
Sacred records like the Westminster Confession of
Faith remind us that our ultimate authority always remains the Holy
Spirit speaking through Scripture. Yes, Scripture is "infallible."
Yes, it is "inerrant." But, it is the inerrancy of the Spirit
speaking through the text. It is the infallibility of revelation to
a specific person at a specific time and a specific place.
More important, "The Spirit who speaks through
scripture speaks with one voice." And any "multilingual texts become
the one voice of the Spirit."32 That’s why "mosaics,"
"multiples," and "metaphors" pose no threat to the faith of the
Coherence and unity will be preserved—as
always—by the Spirit.
FROM SYSTEMATIC TO SYSTEMIC
A new awareness transcends the logic of the past.
A new thinking goes beyond even the postmodernism of today. It rides
the waves of mosaics, multiples, and metaphors and makes known a new
emergence of the All-in-all.
To begin this journey, let us discover the
imperatives for today.
We must learn to see patterns. We must move from
systematic thinking to systemic thinking. We must view knowledge as
an integrated whole. Or, like the arts, we must embrace the beauty
and wisdom of "mosaics."
Then, we need to learn how to "play." We need to
gladly risk the free rein of disorder. In other words, we need to
find joy in apparent randomness. And in this pleasurable abandon, we
need to welcome the multilayered meanings of "multiples."
Finally, we faithfully risk irrational
contradictions. We bow in gratitude for overpowering paradox. We
even plumb the depths of destroyed reason. Like the prophets of old,
we sing the gutsy songs of prophetic "metaphor."
We take these chances recalling a coherence . . .
a harmony . . . a unity among both disconnected and interconnected
things. For the whole is in the part and the part is in the whole.
And in these chances, we discover a knowing
born suddenly in the soul, "like a light
. . . fired by a leaping spark" . . . [resulting] not from
intense verbal activity, but from continued . . . communion
with the subject itself.33
This awareness is a recognition rather than a
cognition. It is an inward gestation of revelation rather than an
outward invention of logic. And, amazingly, this inward revelation
stands on its own. It has an existence—an "is-ness"—prior to being
interpreted. In short, we discover it more than we create it.
It is a dynamic, nonlinear phenomenon.
PARTIAL EPIPHANIES AND ECSTATIC COMMUNION
The enemy to spiritual revelation is the
fear-of-not-knowing, the dread of hard answers. No wonder. Though we
often enjoy refreshments of knowing, we never achieve absolute
knowledge. For we live in a realm where Truth reveals only portions
of the whole. And, without the constant eye of faith, we see with
the blurred vision of temporal uncertainty.
Even so, there is an order behind our disorder.
There is a reason behind our random revelation. We may know, in
part, but we do know! We may see through a glass darkly, but we do
see! We may prophesy "in part," but we do prophesy!34
Such revelation is far from the linear logic of
the modern world.
Again, the early Hebrews called it "meditation."
Like us, they enjoyed only partial epiphanies. But from those known
parts, they "tasted" a bit of the unknown whole. And, in turn, the
sense of the whole revealed more significance to the parts. In time,
this circular, sacred dialogue corrected or corroborated a growing
awareness of the whole and a confidence of the parts.35
We would call their meditation a seemingly random
series of serendipitous revelations. But the Hebrews called it an
ecstatic communion with God.
This ancient—yet futuric—communion with Truth
also suggests a different approach to Scripture. Scripture has a
spiritual integrity that transcends both the interpreter and the
interpreted. So our task—even the task of the scholar—is to let
Scripture speak on its own terms.36 If it doesn’t
surprise us, we’re probably "manipulating" our revelation—as if that
After all, revelation is something spoken to us,
not by us to ourselves.37 So in a sense, Scripture is
never "religious," if by "religious" we mean socially acceptable
ideas about God.
God is bigger than our ideas.
We must be patient in this new pursuit of Truth.
We can no longer construct a logical "truth," regardless of our
intellectual skills. We must wait. We must be satisfied with only
mystical portions of Truth, ever careful not to rob Scripture of its
In the meantime, true lovers of Scripture will
seek patterns of convergence, manifold meanings, and even injured
logic. Or, we will seek mosaics, multiples, and metaphors. And, like
the movie title, we will know a "Many Splendored Thing."
A SEA OF UNCONNECTED DOTS
We’ve been wrong in our time. Critical opinion,
scholarship, and scientific inquiry do not pull things together.
They pull things apart. Academic readings of Scripture do not reveal
fresh insights. They regroup former insights. Cold objectivity does
not guarantee unbiased understanding. It simply dresses old
subjectivity with new bias.
Consider the words of Albert Einstein:
As far as the propositions of mathematics
refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
are certain, they do not refer to reality.39
Or, consider the age-old inadequacy of religious
language. Truth cannot be literally constructed or even paraphrased.
So "we are obliged to rely upon images and models which elude
precise definition."40 Even the modern metaphor proves
far from prophetic. Our grammar books, for example, assume that
metaphor’s allusion is "not a real thing."
And postmodernists have gone wrong as well. Their
love for the parts to the exclusion of the whole . . . their
celebration of local varieties at the expense of unity within those
varieties . . . their delight in man as the source of all things
while ignoring the things that are the source of all men . . . these
opinions do not destroy the Universal Truth beyond postmodern
Again, postmodernists have given us a sea of
dots, but no way to connect them.41
A new knowing bridges the temporal and the
transcendent. It makes infinity imaginable as we move from the
virtual to the revelational. It becomes the prevailing medium of a
new learning as we move toward the prevailing medium of a new
Holding the dramatic tension between what we know
and what we don’t know, we offer the Church a vision more in common
with the ancient prophets than the "enlightened" scholars of the
© 2010 Thomas Hohstadt
1. Oswald Chambers, quote in John Eldredge,
Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man’s Soul
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001) p. 209.
2. Colossians 1:17, AMP.
3. Mike Riddell, Mark Pierson, Cathy Kirkpatrick,
The Prodigal Project: Journey Into the Emerging Church (London:
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2000) p. 76.
4. William Irwin Thompson, The Time Falling
Bodies Take to Light: Mythology, Sexuality, and the Origins of
Culture (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1981) p. 222.
5. The Jim Lehrer News Hour, Sept. 3,
6. Steven Johnson, Interface Culture: How New
Technology Transforms the Way We Create and Communicate (New
York: Basic Books, 1997) p 209.
7. I Corinthians 13:9, KJ.
8. Gretchen Graf, in an online discussion group,
9. Ray Kurzweil, The Age of Spiritual
Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence (New York:
Viking, 1999) p. 16.
10. Derrick de Kerckhove, The Skin of Culture
(Toronto: Somerville House Publishing, 1995) p. 151.
11. Johnson, pp. 54-56.
12. George Barna at
13. Stanley Grenz, in a comment at
14. Nancey Murphy, Beyond Liberalism &
Fundamentalism: How Modern and Postmodern Philosophy Set the
Theological Agenda (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press,
1996) pp. 94, 95.
15. A. K. Rogers, quoted in Stanley Grenze and
John Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a
Postmodern Context (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox
Press, 2001) p. 40.
16. Stanley Grenze and John Franke, Beyond
Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context
(Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001) p. 39,
17. I Corinthians 13:9, KJ (my
18. I agree with my friend, futurist Brad
Sargent, who wrote in a recent e-mail: "My current hunch is that the
dominant logic system of the post-postmodern era will be paradoxical
(apparently contradictory elements that actually coexist without
being in conflict with each other)."
19. Lewis Edwin Hahn, Editor, The Philosophy
of Paul Ricoeur (Chicago: Open Court, 1995) p. 216.
20. Kerckhove, pp. 79, 108, 109.
21. I Corinthians 4:20, AMP.
22. Colossians 1:17, AMP.
23. Hebrews 1:1, AMP.
24. Gilbert Durand, "The Imaginal," The
Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987 ed., VII, p 109.
25. William Irwin Thompson, Coming Into Being
(New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996) p. 91.
26. Robert Webber "The Byzantine Liturgy,"
Twenty Centuries of Christian Worship, Volume II of the Complete
Library of Christian Worship (Nashville: Star Song Publishing
Group, 1994) p. 154.
27. Grenze and Franke, p. 146.
28. II Peter l:2l, I Peter 1:10-12, II Peter
29. Lewis Edwin Hahn, Editor, The Philosophy
of Paul Ricoeur (Chicago: Open Court, 1995) p. 428.
30. Mark 4:22, AMP.
31. Hosea 12:10.
32. Grenze and Franke, p. 86 (my italics).
33. Mark Strom, Reframing Paul: Conversations
in Grace and Community (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2000) p. 106.
34. I Corinthians 13:9, KJ.
35. Grenze and Franke, p. 86.
36. Leonard Sweet, SoulTsunami: Sink or Swim
in the New Millennium Culture, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
37. Grenze and Franke, p. 153.
38. Hahn, p. 270.
39. A. D. Irvine, "Everything You Need to Know
About Contemporary Philosophy"
40. Murphy, p. 44.
41. Sally Morgenthaler in an email to the author.