Paradigmatic Instability

For two thousand years, the Christian church has operated under the fundamental philosophical assertion that humans are clients in need of a divine patron to provide them with what they lack. This paradigm is certainly not unique to Christianity; it is the framework by which almost every religion operates. But is this truly an accurate depiction of the divine/human relationship?

A New Model Proposed

I am a firm believer in the test of exclusivity; all things being equal, the only correct religion will be the most unique religion. If we claim to have the only truth, and yet share much with many other faiths, we must re-examine either our truth-claim or our doctrinal precepts. (Of course, one must never forget the effect of sociocultural and religious derivation in this type of analysis.)

The question then is: Should Christianity be built upon the idea that we lack something that God can give to us?

I offer for consideration a paradigm based upon the relational model of understanding the Gospel. Instead of humans coming to God in search of something that's missing from us, we come to God in search of a relationship.

Consequences of the New Model

This paradigmatic shift would not come without cost:
1) A reinvention of Scripture would become necessary. Instead of Scripture being the "only rule of faith and obedience" and an "effectual means" by which God interacts with us (questions 3 and 155 of the Westminster Larger Catechism), Scripture must become primarily a historical document, to be viewed with authority roughly equal to any other document produced in the Greco-Roman world.
2) The concept of sin would have to be discarded. The concept of sin, and the associated concepts of justification and sanctification, are perhaps the most well-known direct representations of the old paradigm in the world. Although the discarding of these ideas would cause a dramatic impact upon our society, it would be an impact not without significant benefit. The uncountable millions of people who consider themselves to be "good persons" would no longer be tortured by self-fulfulling notions of guilt and despair. This concept is, without question, the most psychologically damaging aspect of our religion; we owe it to ourselves and to our loved ones to no longer torture ourselves. This freedom is the impetus for the entire paradigm shift.
3) Orthodoxy and orthopraxy would be drastically altered. It is perhaps impossible to predict what church would look like under the proposed paradigm, or what the content of one's individual faith might become. This uncertainty should not be an effective deterrent, however; all great discoveries, voyages, and reinventions are accompanied with uncertainty.

I have only sketched out here a few brief thoughts on the matter; further thought would be welcome.