The Great Emergence - with the greatest respect, I demur
Perhaps the most well-announced book to be published this year in the American Christian book market, especially in Emerging circles, is The Great Emergence, by Phyllis Tickle. It’s published by the Emergent Village imprint of Baker Books, so comes as the latest in a highly marketable succession of titles. I managed to pick up a copy not long after its publication and read it some weeks ago. Phyllis Tickle has had an auspicious career in religious publishing and is in a very good place to act as an authoritative commentator of trends within contemporary American Christianity. So it’s with some trepidation that I am going to have to say why I think the book does not deserve the significance all the pre-publication marketing hype has given it.
Phyllis Tickle’s theory is a simple one: that every 500 years, an upheaval occurs that forces the Church to reconstitute itself in ways which will set the scene for the next period of half a millennium. It is her belief that the Church is presently passing through one of these upheavals, and that the Emerging Church movement is laying the foundation of what is to come. To claim that an easily-identifiable, if amorphous, contemporary movement has significance for the next half-millennium of global world Christianity is some claim indeed. The theory, therefore, demands some scutiny. Tickle’s reference-points are the birth of Christianity itself in the 1st century; the pontificate of Gregory the Great; the Great Schism between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Catholicism; The Reformation; and, today, the Emerging Church.
The first question which naturally arises, therefore, is whether the first four of these points in Church History all have sufficient significance to support the theory, for without it, the basic thesis of the book crumbles. Certainly, no-one is going to argue with two of these being of primary significance to Church History: the First Century and the Reformation. The question is over the signficance of the other two points in the 500-year schema. There is no doubt that Gregory the Great’s pontificate was good for the Western Church. It marked the emergence of the Western church structure as a strong political, missional and social force at the very time when the rest of Western Europe was succumbing to the collapse of classical civilization; a collapse which took roughly two hundred years. The problem is that the pontificate began in 590 and ended in 604, about 100 years after the time the theory indicates it should have happened. So a 20% margin of error becomes apparent.
What of the Great Schism, which took place in 1054 (10% error margin)? The mutual anathematization between the Pope and the Patriarchate of Constantinople is largely of symbolic significance, for the Eastern and Western halves of the Church had been drifting apart intellectually since Latin theology emerged in the Third Century, bringing in a distinctly different agenda to that of the East. The move of the administration centre of the Empire to Constantinople and a series of sacks of Rome (by the Visigoths and the Vandals in the 5th century, and the Ostragoths in 6th) led inevitably to competition between the major sees. The formal excommunication only capped a half-millennium of growing mutual isolation between two ecclesial tectonic plates. It was not a crisis, or even a seminal period for the Church. It was just a new low. Indeed, even after the excommunication, cordial relationships were restored and things did not really reach their worst point until the sack of Constantinope during the Fourth Crusade (1203-1204). By choosing the Great Schism, therefore, is Tickle selecting events of symbolic, contemporary, or consequential importance? For if these distinctions are not clarified, to what extent is the theory useful at all?
In addition to these questions of the margin of error and actual significance of two of the four points in history upon which Phyllis Tickle bases her theory, even more questions surround her omission of other events which do not fit neatly into the 500-year schema. The rediscovery of Aristotelian philosophy, the work of Thomas Aquinas and the triumph of Scholasticism between the 12th and 14th centuries transformed the nature of Western Christianity, yet barely get a mention. The emergence of post-biblical patrisitic thought in the 2nd to the 5th centuries, including such giants as Irenaeus, Origen, Athanasius, Augustine and the Cappadocian Fathers, is absent from the picture. And although the conversion of Constantine, and Christianity’s toleration with the Edict of Milan of 313, is not exactly kosher from some Emerging perspectives, it is rather a difficult ‘hinge-point’ to ignore in the history of Christianity. Sadly, its dating is not easily divisible by 500, not even with a 20% error margin, so it gets left out of the picture. Of the global expansion of Christianity through missionary expansion between the 18th and 19th centuries, we hear nothing. Occasionally, we get a hint that Tickle herself is aware of the inconvenience of these significant developments, so she suggests other happenings such as these belong to settled periods between the great moments of change, but by then the flaws in the theory are all too apparent. If such settled periods contain developments which sow a seed for new crises, all well and good. But when it is far from obvious from the evidence that the crisis always breaks on a 500-year cycle, there is nothing plausible left by way of a theory.
So why does the book need this unlikely theory at all? The purpose of the climactic chapter of the book is to proclaim that we are now at one of these once-every-500-year moments: The Great Emergence. Her 20% error-margin allows Phyllis Tickle the scope to embrace just about any event of the 20th century, and even the 19th century, as an overture to what she has to say about the present. We get a helter-skelter through recent American church history (the Rest of the World tends to figure with rather less prominence). However, it is clear that this is ultimately a tract about the Emerging Church. At this point, the hyperbole gets out of hand. The footnotes to this chapter inform us that Doug Pagitt is ‘one of Emergent Christianity’s most influential and brilliant thinkers’. However, this is nothing compared to Brian McLaren, whose A Generous Orthodoxy is ‘an analog to Luther’s ninety-five theses’. With such giants among us, we are walking in a once-every-half-millennium moment. So hold onto your hats.
The publication of the book worries me, not because of the implausible nature of its view of history, but rather because of its strong links to the movement which it seeks to fete. History, when read free of a grand narrative, is a humbling thing. One realises that the concerns and battles which fill our days, though perhaps important, must in the end be set alongside the long list of persons, events and concerns from earlier times. It is nigh-on impossible to make a judgement on the significance of present events when set in the train of this long, long story. The Great Emergence is not so much a grand narrative as a grandiose narrative. It is futurology masquerading as history, forcing the latter into an unlikely and unsuitable corset of teleology. Of course, all historians betray as much about their own time and concerns as those which they narrate. Published, as it is, under the Emergent banner and feted by those of whom it speaks, the events surrounding the publication of this book are saying a lot about how the present leaders of the American Emerging Church see themselves. Like Phyllis Tickle, I have a great respect for these people; as indeed do I for the author’s standing as an eminent commentator on American Christianity. But amid the book’s hyperbole, which reduced me at times to a state somewhere between laughter and tears, am I alone in detecting more than a little self-importance? The brand of Emerging Christianity which Tickle describes began as a gentle protest in the face of an over-dominant, comfortable and formulaic Evangelicalism in America. If, as I fear, it may now be succumbing to the perennial hybris of Religious Movements That Have Become Significant, it is likely to find that Church History will take a slow, leisurely time in proving, with its ruthless inertia, how relatively insignificant most of us are in God’s wider scheme of things.
Posted on Tuesday, 7 October 2008 by Paul | Posted in emerging church, politics | 3 comments
Wisdom from Truth or Consequences
Whilst staying with Chris Webb, an old student of mine and now President of Renovaré, we were looking at a map of the USA in his office and I happened to notice that in New Mexico there was a town called Truth or Consequences. What a great address!
I was somewhat surprised, then, to be directed to a very interesting blog post by two residents of the very same town, discussing the likely impact of the current financial crisis on the values as lived out by poorer societies. They write:
When we built a world on top of one that was given to us and we thanked ourselves for it we parted ways with the natural world and we made gods of ourselves for the doing of it. What do we have to gain from this collapse? Only paradise and the rediscovery of our humanity. And perhaps wealth will finally move to the hands of those most capable of holding it, those who know how to live in the real world a world that teaches us through our ability to live in it that the health of the individual is dependent on the health of the whole.
Thanks to Gina Trapani at Lifehacker for the link.
Posted on Monday, 29 September 2008 by Paul | Posted in ecology, politics | No comments
Childbirth - a female view
OK, Health Warning: this is definitely not for viewing by under-18 year-olds and probably not to be viewed by anyone who hasn’t been through the process of producing a child at some point in their lives…
[Update: OK, having given women a couple of weeks’ chance to have a dig at their men, I’ve pulled this one on the grounds of maintaining the otherwise impeccable standard of taste, dignity and high culture of this site!]
Posted on Thursday, 25 September 2008 by Paul | Posted in humour | No comments
The Royal Society and Creationism - did Reiss jump or was he pushed?
An interesting story currently featuring on the BBC website concerns the ‘decision’ by Professor Michael Reiss to stand down as the director of education of the Royal Society. This follows a minor controversy following his comments that creationism should be discussed in science lessons if a pupil raises the matter. The difficult is that I cannot understand why Prof. Reiss has done anything wrong. He did not, as some newspapers reported, advocate that creationism should be ‘taught’, merely that it should be ‘discussed’ if pupils raised the matter. This seems an identical proposal to that which is mentioned in the press statement from the Society, which states that creationism has no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum …
However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific.
So what is the difference between these two positions? Perhaps the worst that Professor Reiss actually did was to posit the idea that such a situation might arise and that pupils’ questions of this nature should be taken seriously by science teachers. (Surely that’s what any good teacher would do?) Maybe members of the Royal Society do not wish to be reminded that so many people actually believe creationism, so by raising its profile in this way, Professor Reiss’s comment was failing to chime in with a secularist agenda which likes to claim that only the odd crank or two believes, literally, in the biblical story of creation.
For the Royal Society to get involved in the religious vs secularist debate would be a retrograde position for it to adopt. It is, after all, the ‘Royal Society for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge’ - not a Philosophy debating society. It includes within its numbers advocates of atheism, secularism, Jews and Christians along with members of other faiths. Up to this point, it has advocated a broad-church approach to the religious and philosophical stances of its members. (Take, for example, the philosophical and religious positions of Isaac Newton and Michael Faraday.) It is a matter of concern that Professor Reiss should be asked to step down, merely for suggesting that a religiously-influenced stance on the origins of the cosmos should be taken sufficiently seriously to be challenged on its scientific veracity. It is a matter of even greater concern, perhaps, to note that Professor Reiss is also an ordained priest within the Church of England. Could this have added a greater hysteria to the calls for him to step down from his seconded position?
It is interesting that Lord Robert Winston is quoted as saying: ‘I fear that in this action the Royal Society may have only diminished itself… This individual was arguing that we should engage with and address public misconceptions about science - something that the Royal Society should applaud.’ If the Royal Society is starting to exhibit something resembling a Dawkinsian secularist knee-jerk reaction, then it is guilty, itself, of entertaining a ‘misconception about science’.
(18th September …) I’ve had one further thought about this subject since writing the post: there are some who suggest that the best place for creationism to be addressed is within the confines of RE lessons, largely on the grounds that ‘creationism’ is a religious viewpoint, as opposed to evolution, which is a ’scientific’ viewpoint. This is to entirely miss the point, however. The two theories are occupying the same intellectual space and are competing theories, rather than completely different subject matter. Unless creationism is tackled within the context of science lessons, it is implying that both evolution and creationism are, in fact, both religious viewpoints. I cannot believe the Royal Society would be too happy with that kind of conclusion that pupils could draw, even though it is entirely implied by relegating the subject matter to RE lessons. In the end, creationism must stand or fall by the canons of scientific verification, in exactly the same way as must evolution. A further point is that much creationism is backed up by ’scientific’ theories, which must themselves be subject to a scientific analysis. In the end, it’s a case of the old adage that if you walk off the pitch refusing to play, you are deemed to have lost the game.
Posted on Tuesday, 16 September 2008 by Paul | Posted in uncategorized | 4 comments
Bishop of Rochester appears to turn his critical gaze on Emerging churches
The Bishop of Rochester, who these days is turning out to be one of the more reliable critics of everything that might be trendy, GAFCON-attender and no-show-er at Lambeth, was invited to to give the talk at the Annual General Meeting of the Prayer Book Society. (A group of traditionalists, who tend to dislike anything Anglican and liturgical that has been written in the past 350 years).
His talk is covered by Ruth Gledhill on her Times Blog. From her notes of his talk:
‘This new fashion of network churches - for people like one another in taste for music or whatever it maybe who want to be church together.
‘It might be possible for us to agree that Christians can be church in this way as long as this is not the only way they want to be church.’ (Closer study of the New Testament had brought him to this conclusion.)
‘The question precisely with many of the emerging church movements is whether people can be or are committed to such universal belonging.’
If I was a journalist, I’d probably listen to the talk, but to be honest, I have better things to do at the moment. That’s why I’m not a journalist.
Posted on Monday, 15 September 2008 by Paul | Posted in emerging church | 1 comment
Emergents and postmodernism
Regular readers of this blog (are there any left?) will have gathered that I have become increasingly unconvinced about the whole postmodern thing that you still hear about and read about in Emerging circles. I’ve written down some rather scratchy notes about why I’m leaving the postmodern Faithful and pursuing a vision of Church which is not avowedly postmodern. Since it’s a bit of a long piece, I’ve decided to post it as a separate page, rather than as an article in the blog sequence. For any odd person who’d be remotely interested, you can read it here. It’s still thought in process, but I can’t see myself going back to describing our present culture as postmodern without gazillions of qualifiers.
Posted on Monday, 15 September 2008 by Paul | Posted in altworship, emerging church, theology | 4 comments
They’ll never make him a bishop now …
Sir Cliff Richard explained his rather liberal views on same-sex relationship in the Times last week. I can hear the sound of a thousand Evangelical jaws dropping. I think he’s being rather brave - so maybe I’ll forgive him for recording Millennium Prayer. Thanks to Maggi for pointing me to this.
Posted on Sunday, 7 September 2008 by Paul | Posted in uncategorized | 1 comment
New picture
The new head picture of this blog is Porthtowan Beach in Cornwall. We’ve stayed there on holiday now for the past three years. It’s one of my favourite places on the planet, as earlier posts will show. The sunsets are amazing - easily beating anything I have seen in California (too much fog where the scenery was nice; not enough scenery when the fog went away). The surfing’s good too. The Blue Bar tops everything off with tasty food and good beer.
I can understand why my American friends love the West Coast. In a country where most cities are land-locked, it can be amazing to visit a coastline where the sun sets over the ocean. We saw a great one from Point Montara Youth Hostel. Britons need to remember how lucky they are. In the UK, you’re never more than about 80 miles from the coast - something which has come to prominence in the excellent BBC series Coast.
So although I’ve seen some lovely places in California as we toured down the coast between San Francisco and Santa Barbara, the following places are, in my personal opinion, more spectacular coastline: North Cornwall - especially between Porthtowan and St Agnes; Gower Coast - especially Three Cliffs Bay and Rhossili; The South Hams of Devon, especially Slapton Beach; South Cornwall, especially St Just in Roseland. I could go on … Now if only we could export the weather of Southern California to Britain - consistent blue skies and temperatures of a nice 84 degrees Farenheit.
But back on Porthtowan - of all the beaches I’ve visited, I think it has the best sunsets.
Posted on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 by Paul | Posted in uncategorized | 2 comments
Mainline churches: the real reason for decline
The underlying problem of the mainline churches … is the weakening of the spiritual conviction required to generate the enthusiasm and energy needed to sustain a vigorous communal life. Somehow, in the course of the past century, these churches lost the will or the ability to teach the Christian faith and what it requires to a succession of younger cohorts in such a way as to command their allegience … In respose to the currents of modernity, denominational leaders … did not devise or promote compelling new versions of a distinctively Christian faith. They did not fashion or preach a vigorous apologetics …
…Many of them have reduced the Christian faith to belief in God and respect for Jesus and the Golden Rule, and among this group a growing proportion have little need for the church.
Perhaps some now unforeseen cultural shift will one day bring millions of baby boom dropouts back to the mainline churches. But nothing we discovered in our study suggests the likelihood of such a shift. If the mainline churches want to regain their vitality, their first step must be to address theological issues head on. They must … provide compelling answers to the question, “what is so special about Christianity?”
(Benton Johnson, Dean R. Hoge and Donald A. Luidens, ‘Mainline Churches: the real reason for decline’, First Things 31 (March 1993) 18. Quoted in Marva Dawn, Reaching out without dumbing down (Eerdmans, 1995) 46.)
Posted on Monday, 1 September 2008 by Paul | Posted in emerging church, good ole cofe, theology | 1 comment
Beer and Hymns at Greenbelt 2008
I love being in California - but tonight, I would rather be in the Organic Beer Tent at Greenbelt for the wonderful and uplifting event which is Hymns and Beer. I have blogged this event in previous years, which has become one of the most memorable events of the weekend. This year, it will be livestreamed here (my guess is it will happen between 7pm and 8pm Greenbelt-time, ie. 11am to noon, Pacific Time) - although since I will be driving my family down the Big Sur, I don’t think it would be politic to break off the drive to find a wireless connection! Still, men and women, I’ll be with you in spirit, and I hope you all sip some Absolution Ale and sing Cwm Rhondda (Guide Me O Thou Great Jehovah) with gusto and spare a thought for me as you do.
Posted on Sunday, 24 August 2008 by Paul | Posted in spirituality | 3 comments
