Search Results (4)

Preaching has always been a means of congregational formation, and it is most effective in this endeavor when the homiletic matches the expectations of the audience. Modernism’s solo, authoritative clergy voice and postmodernism’s inductive New Homiletic responded to the needs of listeners in their respective eras. This paper proposes a homiletical paradigm that responds to metamodernism—a movement emerging in the U.S. over the past 10 years—and imagines this paradigm’s contribution to Christo-formation in the faith community. After the introduction, this paper traces how modernism and postmodernism affected America’s homiletic and subsequent congregational formation. This is followed by a description of metamodernism, its place within postmodernity, and its effect on church members’ expectations. Next, I present a shared pulpit culture, where the congregation hears a myriad of preaching voices, as a formative response to metamodern demands for more complex truths to be discerned within trusting communities. The paper ends with experiences from a faith community that practices a shared pulpit to show how the practice forms the vocational preacher, the members who preach, and the church at large. Full article

In a contemporary world facing countless multifaceted crises and challenges, science can still serve as one of the most powerful tools to deal with the ordeals of our time. However, the scientific community needs to provide space for reflection on novel ways of developing its centuries-old heritage and unlocking its potential for the benefit of the world and humanity. The purpose of this article was to deliberate on the image of contemporary science within the framework of the new philosophical paradigm of metamodernism. Following historical strands related to metamodernism and science, the authors encircled the general features and elaborated the main philosophical principles of metamodernism. The main task was to identify elements of contemporary science that conform to the philosophical principles of metamodernism. Thus, several features of science and research, such as the structure of science, scientific truth, metanarratives of science, scientific thinking, system of science, interaction of scientific disciplines, dialogue of science with society and politics, open science, digitalisation of science, etc., were interpreted through the perspective of the ontological, epistemological, axiological, and methodological principles of metamodernism. This article ends with a summary of the main points of the discussion and practical implications of the presented ideas. Full article

At this moment, humanity is confronting several global metacrises that demand a new image of science to deal with the complex problems associated with these crises. In addition to natural sciences and humanities, social sciences can become an equally efficient resource for use in this transformation if they succeed in constructing new frameworks congruent with the new reality. The purpose of this theoretical paper in the discourse of philosophy of science is to discern the features of the social sciences within a new paradigm of metamodernism. For the first time, the authors elaborate on the new principles of metamodernist philosophy and apply them to the ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology of the social sciences. The set of six transversal principles comprises the ontological principle of paradoxical simultaneity, caused by oscillation, epistemological principles of paradoxical understanding of truth and grand narratives, as well as metaxis-based thinking and dia/polylogue, axiological negotiation between rhizomatic and hierarchical social relations and values, and methodological pluralism. The last principle showcases the coexistence and interlinkage of previous stages of metamodernism. The application of these principles to the social sciences was designed from the perspectives of a specific discipline, inter/transdisciplinarity, and instrumental level of social practice. The paper concludes with a discussion of additional avenues for the development of metamodernism in the social sciences. Full article

The concept of metamodernism relies on our understanding of modernism, postmodernism and the bigger cultural periods that originated them. While modernism is a product of modernity, postmodernism is not situated comprehensively within a well-defined period. Moreover, when dealing with the dichotomy of movement and era in the last century, we are presented with a taxonomic dilemma of conflating eras and their aesthetical manifestations. Contrary to the prevalent view of cultural shifts, here I propose a different attempt at periodising and understanding ontologically the concepts of modernism, postmodernism and metamodernism, and the related cultural periods in which they are situated. I argue that modernism and postmodernism should be considered as a continuum in a temporal sense, but not as equal orders in a categorical sense, and that postmodernism is not an apt descriptor for the period following modernity, nor for the aesthetic paradigm following modernism. To resolve this problem, on the one hand, I propose we adopt the term metamodernity, which better reflects the new era of cultural development. On the other hand, I discuss metamodernism, which is the current aesthetical, and to a degree axiological, manifestation of this new era. Full article