Phyllis Tickle's "The Great Emergence"

nicpaton's picture

Where is this thing going, even as it is carrying all of us along with it in its mad careen?

In a movement regularly criticised as consisting of online, anti-establishment, young, white males, Phyllis Tickle's voice is a relief. White of hair and skin she may be, but on most other counts she scratches parts that others cannot, breaking apart age, gender and denominational categories. When she spoke to Tony Jones on a podcast in July 2007 two things stood out for me. Firstly, her unabashed, unequivocal support of the Emergent and Emerging conversation, and the fact that her ambition when she grew up was to "be a crone".

Tickle, now in her 70's, is well qualified to comment. The author of numerous works (including plays), she was also the founding Religion editor for Publishers Weekly, close to the heartbeat of social, philosophical and theological trends at the fin de siècle in the United States. Widely acknowledged as an expert in Church history, she is well placed to see large patterns at play, and to sooth our angst, "you are not alone in the turbulence you are experiencing; it has happened before, again and again". In addition to an Elders wisdom, she offers incisive analysis from a feminine point of view. As a crone in the making, she is bold enough to offer a prophetic vision not just to our age, but for generations to come. For some, Armageddon and Rapture are just around the corner, and prognostications about a New Christianity in Time and Space are the last things to worry about, but Tickle keeps her feet firmly on the ground, and reaches unashamedly for the stars.

Tickles central quest can be stated succinctly, and it is this: "Where, now, is our authority?” Like Francis Schaeffer’s question "How then shall we live?" (posed in the 1970's), she shares a perspective widely informed by broader cultural trends. Unlike Schaeffer, who wrote from deep within a modernist, conservative evangelical paradigm, but nonetheless provided a solid Christian witness against the onslaught of what he termed the "Line of Despair" - existentialism, nihilism, and relativism being his watchwords - Tickle brings to us the fruits of an optimistic, post modern "return" to biblical faith.

For her, the problem of authority hinges around the current protestant orthodoxy of "sola scriptura, scriptura sola." While Luther played a pivotal role in steering the Church onwards 500 years ago with his emphasis on the priesthood of all believers, and the sole authority of scripture, Tickle sees the end for sola as commonly understood.

The erosion of the authority of sola scriptura will have been in 4 stages: the end of slavery as a biblically justified practice, the acknowledgement of the reality of divorce and that those who suffer it might find total restitution in the eyes of God, the ascendancy of woman to ministry, and finally (and as yet incomplete), an acceptance of homosexuals into the Church. Added to this she includes the Pentecostal and Charismatic renewals (the Vineyard movement getting special mention) in which the Holy Spirit played an increased role in questions of Authority.

Unlike most voices who see only the demise of a Christianity without the "authority of scripture", Tickle offers a new direction. But rather than some simplistic alternative, her proposal is robustly built up, step by step, and illustrated in a series of developing graphics. She starts with a "quadrilateral": a square of 4 parts, each representing a major sector of the North American Church: Conservatives, Renewalists, Social Justice and Liturgical. She shows via a "cruciform" how these are beginning to coalesce into what she calls the "gathering centre". What emerges is an iconic "rose" motif representing a qualitatively new type of Christianity.

The culminating thought is the introduction of a new word (new to me at any rate) - Orthonomy. Ortho we shall identify as meaning "correct" or "right", but nomos is more difficult.

I'll leave this one for the authors own words:

"... it means to name the principles or resonances that create the harmony of sounds in poetry or music and the order in things in creation ... to name the law and its perfection as the expression of the governance of God. In sum, nomos is, most nearly, the ineffable beauty in that which is divine, especially as it becomes incarnate in space and time.

Orthonomy may be defined then as a kind of 'correct harmoniousness' or beauty. In effect, when it is used here, it means the employment of aesthetic or harmonic purity as a tool for discerning the truth - and therefore the intent or authority- of anything, be that thing either doctrine or practice." [149]

"Where, now, is our authority?" Tickle suggests that it arises out of community, conversation, and a new way of knowing, from the compost provided by every sector and tradition of the church, but that is will be based on an epistemology substantially different from modernistic ways of knowing. She has managed to put into words something I have only suspected: the ultimate authority of Jesus' parables, for example, lie in their boundless meaningfulness and their inherent poetry. Many, if not most of us, who hold scripture in high regard, might find the assertion that orthonomy supercedes orthodoxy just one step too far, but I sigh with relief to have my deepest intuitions thus validated.

As original and erudite as it is, "The Great Emergence" is not without its problems. Briefly, its admittedly North American emphasis does make it hard to accept the thesis wholesale for anyone from the rest of the world. I always balk at American ignorance, arrogance and parochialism, so my hot buttons are easy to find. I am in no way accusing her of these things, far from it, but I'll be happy to put this bias down to her Publishers DNA and demographic awareness more than any suspect intent.

While for the most part I was spellbound by her originality and alacrity, there were times when her waxings began to wane. One such instance is her "cable" analogy of truth which lost me, sinking somewhat under its own weight. And lastly, I think just a touch of hard sociological data might have been in order, to support her claims that for instance, one quarter of Emergents are Catholic (but perhaps that is someone elses job).

Like Brian McLarens "A Generous Orthodoxy", "The Great Emergence" is a deeply ecumenical work, gifting the church with new and exciting tools for engagement with a new era. She considers the roots of this emergence, presenting the Reformation as a prequel to emergence, and then showing how in the last century Marx and Darwin, Einstein and Heisenberg, Freud, Jung, and Campbell have played pivotal roles in the redefinition of our world. I'd suggest that this "worldly" awareness be taken further by the reader, and although flawed, James Herrick’s "The Making of the New Spirituality : The Eclipse of the Western Religious Tradition", a catalog of the influences eroding what he (too pejoratively) calls the "Revealed Word" tradition, provides a good counterpoint.

As in all things, history will tell whether "The Great Emergence" was in fact a once-in-500-year event, a vain hope, or plain hype. But it is deeply reassuring to have a qualified elder observe, hold, and validate a nascent movement. In "The Great Emergence", Phyllis Tickle has combined the energy of the maiden and the wisdom of the crone, together with the nurturing intent of the mother, in her proud, celebratory closing litany: "The cub has grown into the young lion; and now is the hour of his roaring."

thegreatemergence.com
phyllistickle.com

Comments

eugeneroberts's picture

Tickled Authority

I see this question of authority keeps coming up and specifically about scripture. In my opinion it is becoming a vital question that cannot be brushed aside or be answered lightly. It is also quickly moving from the theological and philosophical sphere to where it is a question on the lips of the normal members of churches (just look at the number of articles and letters in Die Burger and Beeld), no doubt helped along by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Most of the time these Christians only have a one dimensional view of scripture (literal) and then with the slant of their specific denomination or stream leading them to believe that Scripture is no longer authoritive. My experience so far leads me to believe more Christians are asking difficult questions about authority now than ever before and that they are serious about what the truth is and where to find it. The time of just insisting that the Bible is the Word of God and that's the end is long past. We will have to work through this and be able to lead our congregants to find sources of truth they can believe in and reveals the risen Christ to them.

Eugene Roberts
http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com

Marius Brand's picture

Is authority really the question?

I have just finished reading Carl Raschke's 'Globochrist: The great commission takes a postmodern turn' (thanks for the book, Andy!) and he has some very interesting arguments. In contrast to Tickle he says the authority question is a leftover headache from late modernism and that Emergent, and especially McLaren, are simply rehashing stuff the liberals did in the 60s: "[it] habitually calls itself the "new kind" of Christianity when it is no more than warmed-over 1960s-style social liberalism". But make no mistake - he is no conservative critic.

He says the real issues of the postmodern condition are globalization, indigenization and a global return to religion. He focuses not on the petty culture wars that the USA, and emergent, are involved in, but on what is happening in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. And the real threat, he argues, is Islam and "the collision of eschatologies". In this regard, "a liberal Christian, or even post-Christian, global civil society that allows a loose and mutually respectful - if not tolerant - recital of differences is looming as increasingly less possible in our globo-pomo environment."

Postmodern thought has to take difference seriously, as the concept of difference lies at the root of deconstructive theory, and the big difference in the world now is between the competing soteriologies and eschatologies of Christianity and Islam, especially postmodern forms of both (that is globalized, indigenized forms).

His conclusion (regarding emergence and emergent) is that far from being a once in 500 year paradigm shift, it is a passing fad:

"Unfortunately, the issues of the new, trendsetting Emergent Village kind of postmodern Christianity are not really global issues. At the start of the new millenium, they are simply a replay of the modernist-fundamentalist debates a century ago, with a few savory pinches of the culture wars thrown in for good measure. They are debates over how rigid or loose one is supposed to take classical Christian directives, how far one can accommodate to contemporary secular values and perspectives without diluting the meaning and motivating force of the faith itself. Accommodating or not accommodating to the saeculum is no longer of any discernable consequence for global Christianity."

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Now, not only do I think his truth doth lack some gentleness and time to speak it in, I think his evaluation of McLaren and the larger emerging, missional church conversation are downright wrong, I do think he makes some very pertinent criticisms, which you also picked up on in subtle forms in Tickle's book, Nic.

We need to be vary wary of American parochialism and self-importance in the emerging conversation - because much of their debate is not our, African (or global) debate. And we can help them see the bigger picture of what the 'real' globopomo challenges are. There is much we have and can learn from them, but there is also much that we can bring as a corrective to some of the dead-ends of the American emergent conversation.

nicpaton's picture

John Morehead interviews Carl Raschke

Marius
See John Moreheads interview with Raschke
http://johnwmorehead.blogspot.com/2008/12/carl-raschke-globochrist-great.html

GertMarincowitz's picture

Thanks for this

This is the kind of self-critique that we need here - my thoughts also tended in this direction for some time now. Will comment in more detail later, when I also look at the interaction between Orthodox Christianity and emergers.

nicpaton's picture

puffing away...

Marius
You stirrer!

Globalization and indigenization ARE matters of authority.
Who tells me I am OK? Apple, Coke and Nike, or God?
Who validates me as Twa (pygmy)? The Belgians, or God?

Regarding the clash of eschatologies, well I can see authority being a key player. Do we accept the Mohommedan narrative over the Christian one? Which has the authority?

But yes, Western Emergent thinking is only part of the picture. But Emergents, McLaren for example, acknowledge this, as he did in speaking about Postcolonial-Postmodern as being flip sides of the coin, one from the vantage point of the oppressor and the other of the oppressed.

As for it being "warmed-over 1960s-style social liberalism" well that assumes 1960s-style social liberalism came out of the oven complete. No, in my mind this aspect of emergence had a root in 60's counterculture, and it is still developing.

To what extent do you think the global community might "eventually catch up" with the current western postmodern one? Since colonisation, the third world has played catch up with Europe. This is still in evidence, for example in consumerism and individualism. Aspirations in Africa are towards what the west has offered. Are you saying that an authentic localised spirituality and ethos will reverse or depart from this trend? Because if not, postmodernity is still to come for Africa.

Marius Brand's picture

still huffing and puffing

Nic, wish I had the time to engage properly. Alas, only a few comments without commentary:

I think the essential question of both postcolonialism and postmodernity (or popomo for that matter) is not authority but identity. This is especially so in terms of globalization and indigenization. Rather than who tells me I'm okay the question is what sign or symbol tells me who I am? And the post- answer to the question has to be relational, in other words, what are the signs and symbols of my being-in-relationship that give me a sense of belonging and meaning.

The false answer is obviously material stuff. The right answer is obviously the universe, self, others, God - in no particular order. Well, maybe not so obvious - but it bloody well should be! The danger of emergent is that while it points out the importance of the relational and the missional, in practice the label/sign/symbol of 'emergent' can become the identity, the false self, instead of authentic relationships themselves.

It would be very sad indeed if the rest "caught up" with the West, in the sense of becoming postmodern (in the French or Anglo-American sense). Because most of the developing world does not share the modern, Enlightenment history of the West it can never become postmodern in that way. What it is reacting to, overcoming (and hopefully transcending) is a very different story. In fact, Raschke's whole argument is that the global South is most definitely already postmodern, but that means something completely different to what we (as Westerners) assume it should mean.

Agreed, that is an expanded definition of postmodern. Rather than "an incredulity towards metanarratives" it really is just "what comes after the modern", or in the global South, what comes after the colonial. Epistemology has never really been an African concern, but what has been of critical importance is power relations. So yes, authority, in the sense of the practical consequences of power imbalances, but not a preoccupation with the rational and universal justification thereof.

I hope my attempt at succintness has not rendered me unintelligable!

GertMarincowitz's picture

Questions for Marius, Nic and other volunteers

>>>>>It would be very sad indeed if the rest "caught up" with the West, in the sense of becoming postmodern (in the French or Anglo-American sense). Because most of the developing world does not share the modern, Enlightenment history of the West it can never become postmodern in that way. What it is reacting to, overcoming (and hopefully transcending) is a very different story. In fact, Raschke's whole argument is that the global South is most definitely already postmodern, but that means something completely different to what we (as Westerners) assume it should mean.>>>>>

To what extent is this observation also true of the Orthodox (Eastern) Church? Can we say that this part of the Christian church is also "most definitely already postmodern" but without having embraced modernism in an earlier period? That like Africa, authority and claims of the supernatural in the Orthodox Church are not justified through rationalistic use of proof-texts (evangelical apologetics) but flows naturally from the community's experience and history? That they appeal to a premodern metanarrative of which they feel an integral part as a community?

Gert

Steve Hayes's picture

Orthodoxy and moderninty

Gert,

What you wrote above is a fairly good summary.

We once had an Anglican visitor to our church, and she said, "The trouble with the Orthodox Church is that it never experienced the Enlightenment".

But some would say that that is an advantage in facing the postmodern world.

But the Orthodox Church in some ways did experience the Enlightenment, only its experience was different from that of the West. In Russia, Peter the Great was a great fan of the Enlightenment, and tried to impose it in a kind of culture war. He moved the capital from Moscow to St Petersburg, and began a Westernisation project (a bit like what happened to Africa in the colonial period -- 1880-1960).

The result was that the Russian nobility spoke French better than they did Russian, and adopted a Western mentality, turned the peasants into serfs, tried to make the church subservient to the state by abolishing the Patriarchate and replacing it with a holy synod run by the Tsar's tame pimp called a "procurator" (same title as Pontius Pilate), etc. It was the peasants who kept Orthodoxy going.

Then along came the Bolsheviks, and they tried to finish what Peter the Great started -- an enfoced modernization progamme with five year plans, and turning human beings into cogs in a state machine. Ultimately they didn't succeed, but as a result the Orthodox are very suspicious of modernity and modernisation programmes.

Marius Brand's picture

African Orthodoxy

What I think is true of Eastern and African Orthodoxy (Ethopian & Coptic), and generally true of African epistemology and spirituality is that they never had to deal with the rational struggle of justifying universal ideas in the way that Europe did. In that sense they remained largely premodern/prerational and hence emphasized and enjoyed the mystical and the symbolic in a way that the West no longer could.

In the postmodern world Westerners are rediscovering these [deeper] truths, but it is not the same as saying the Orthodox church and African spirituality are therefore postmodern. Ken Wilber calls that the pre-post fallacy. Just because postmodernism often looks a lot like premodernism it does not mean it is the same thing.

In Wilber's own words, "Modernity (and postmodernity) had persuasive reasons for their anti-metaphysical crusades (reasons that need to be acknowledged), but in the process, so many babies were tossed with so much bathwater that the end result was pandemic nihilism and aperspectival madness that came to define the post/modern West [and that gave evangelicals the willies]. What we want to do is back up a step or two, turn anti-metaphysics into post-metaphysics, and attempt to come to terms with the enduring truths in the premodern and modern and postmodern turns, starting by reconstructing the great wisdom traditions and their essential notions." (Integral Spirituality, pg 271)

The East and the South need to acknowledge what truth there is coming from the Enlightenment legacy (chastened rationalism and empericism, science, technology, etc.) but they do not have to go through a modernist period to do so and they most certainly do not need to lose the mystical and the supernatural/metaphysical. They just need to post it!

Hence the importance of relational globalization (as opposed to neocolonialism), cross-pollination and indigenization. Or integral emergence?

Estelle's picture

Check out new book

I found this little book to be quite helpful for those interested in the "African Orthodoxy".

http://www.bmedia.co.za/component/page,shop.product_details/flypage,shop.flypage/product_id,1016/category_id,59/manufacturer_id,0/option,com_virtuemart/Itemid,10/language,eng/vmcchk,1/

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <em> <b> <img> <i>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options