A Review of:
Emergence
Christianity: What It Is, Where It Is Going, and Why It Matters
By Phyllis Tickle, Baker Books, 237 pages
History,
religious movements and ideas do not come in neat packages. As a young student
going to a one room country school my understanding of the past was idealistic.
That is because the text books I hoisted onto my lap, as I placed my feet on
the oven door to read, were written from an ideal perspective. The authors used
the ‘great men’ version of history writing. But no matter, my teacher, Bessie
Stevens, tall and looming, with her gray hair in a bun, after morning
devotions, read us Marxists stories of the new Russia, with a bit of historical
flavor.
Historiography,
the study of historical theory or how history is written, is for the history
major generally a required subject. And it breaks apart most idealism including
conservative and Marxist histories.
There
is the method of using ‘great men,’ mentioned above—which is great reading;
there is the Annals school which has great documentation but is often boring. Try
reading four-hundred pages of weather cycles, crop loss, deaths and births in
the Mediterranean region. There is also
cyclical history writing. That is the idea that history is made up of great
cycles of events that often, in some way, repeat themselves. Phyllis Tickle in
her book, Emergence Christianity: What It Is, Where
It Is Going, and Why It Matters, is forced into a cycler mode
because she sees church history, in the western world, moving in circles of renewal.
By this Tickle means that events begin to accumulate which change culture to
the degree that eventually the church is forced to look again at such things as
beliefs, worship, authority and structure—with an eye toward discarding some of
its supposed baggage.
In both this book and Tickle’s last one, The
Great Emergence: How Christianity is Changing and Why, she
points, among other events, to the Great Schism of the eleventh century, the
Reformation and the “disestablishment of slavery” as cultural or social events
that caused the church to begin remaking itself.
In this latest book Tickle
spends some time pulling in what she sees as changing events including recent
events which she believes are changing the Church. Next she looks at various
groups that she now believes can be seen as members of the Emergence community.
The middle section of the book is filled with photographs with explanation of
various groups participating in Emergence activity. The latter part of the book
deals more with what Emergence Christianity believes.
I want to look at two of Tickle’s assumptions: her
inclination to subsume everything under Emergence Christianity, and the theology
that Tickle believes is emerging from the movement.
In my review of Tickle’s earlier book, The Great Emergence, I pointed out that Tickle had attempted to tie
a parochial movement of the United States and Great Britain to the global
community by connecting it to such events as the Reformation and the Great Schism.
In Emergence Christianity, Tickle
seemingly corrects this by pulling in a wider girth of participants. In the
earlier book on Emergence she failed to see other movements within the United States
that were more apt to bring renewal and change. In Tickle’s new book she simply
subsumes them under emergence by referring to them as “push backs.” In other
words Tickle places all Christian movements under Emergence Christianity.
Calling it peri-Emergence times and pulling in the global
community, Tickle uses Vatican II and its attending bishops who came from differing
continents. She refers to Liberation theology and black theologian activist
James Cone; she also mentions, in the same breath Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin,
their Catholic Worker and hospitality houses. (72-76)
The priest Gustavo Gutierrez, Leonardo Boff and Jon Sobrino
along with Martyr Oscar Romero also become members of the peri-Emergence times.
Then feminist and LGBT rights activists get added to the mix. While some of
these historical figures certainly fit with a lot of Emergent ideas some are
simply strains of Christianity as it has always been, living in poverty, caring
for the poor and needy and suffering in the process. Tickle’s emphasis on
Romero’s death and her placement of him in the mix of peri-Emergence means she fails
to understand Romero’s self-identity. He once stated:
The Church will always have its
word to say: conversion. Progress will not be completed even if we organize
ideally the economy and the political and social orders of our people. It won’t
be entire with that. That will be the basis, so that it can be completed by
what the church pursues and proclaims: God adored by all, Christ acknowledged
as only Savior, deep joy of spirit in being at peace with God and with our
brothers and sisters.[1]
Certainly Vatican II, although offering some reforms, Dorothy
Day and Peter Maurin as well as Oscar Romero, given their theological
foundations, would have nothing to do with the idea that they were peri-Emergence.
They were all orthodox in their Christology and all pro-life in their
worldview. One cannot simply gather up every Christian religious movement and
person and claim them as spiritual ancestors. A gatherer of rags starts with
rags, but when one gathers various materials, some shining in their reflection
of light, others diminished by their inability to reflect, and suggest that
they all belong to the same category—all are diminished.
In Tickle’s proclivity for gathering all Christian religious
movements under her heading of Emergence Christianity she does recognize the
rise of Calvinism in our own day. But failing to recognize them in their own
right, Tickle identifies them as push backs against Emergence. Tickle, after
writing of what Calvinism is, states:
None of this is new, of course,
but neither is it revival. Rather, it is, as we have said, push-back. It is the
application of one integrated body of orthodox, Latinized Christian teaching to
Great Emergence circumstances. It is resistance to Great Emergence in many
ways, while at the same time sharing Emergence’s etiology and essence. As such
and because of its sheer size, it will be a participant in, or at the very
least a potent influence upon the events and decisions that, during the coming
decades, will determine the shape of Emergence Christianity in its full
maturity. (189)
Tickle names Timothy Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in
New York City as one of the new Calvinist. One wonders if Keller would be surprised
to find out that his identity is as a push-back to Emergence. (See note 6, 190)
Tickle
attempts to explain somewhat the beliefs of those she sees directly involved in
Emergent Christianity and Emerging Christianity. Yes, she does split Emergence
Christianity into two movements. This is important information
because it does change how one might view one group of Emergence Christianity as
opposed to others. Tickle writes that there are emerging Christians and emergent
Christians. Of the difference she writes:
Emergent Christianity/Village Church/Christians are
aggressively all-inclusive and non-patriarchal. They are far more interested in
the actuality of Scripture than its historicity or literal inerrancy. … By and large,
Emerging Christianity, Church, Christians could not differ with these positions
if they tried.[2]
(142)
Tickle
also points out that although several well known members of Emergence
Christianity, Scot McKnight and Mark Driscoll, at first referred to themselves as
emerging/emergent, they changed to simply emerging after Brian McLaren
published his book, A New Kind of
Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith. The point for
me is that there are some who reside closer to orthodoxy than others. Tickle’s
theological explanations often do not resemble orthodoxy. (143)
In
explaining Emergence Christianity’s theological outlook, Tickle sometimes tends,
toward a monarchial view of the Trinity, the persons are simply the actions of
God during various ages. After referring to the Trinity as It and explaining
many of the Trinity’s actions throughout the Bible, Tickle writes:
The Trinity comes now near to the promised
realization of its intention. It comes, as It said it would. And What we saw
and feared in the image of the Father, What we saw and embraced as
Savior-Brother, we now know as Spirit and cling to as Advocate, even as It has
said of Itself from the beginning. Now, without need of image or flesh, It
comes, and we receive It as in the last of creation’s ages.(208)
One
of the misunderstandings here is what is implied when one speaks of the
Trinity. Trinity is always Father, Son and Holy Spirit, so one cannot refer to
God as Trinity without including each person. In the same way the persons are
not parts. They are each fully God. They are of the same essence. The Trinity
is a mystery worth understanding—which is truly paradox.
At
other times in her book it is fairly clear that Tickle understands the
distinctions within the Godhead, as when she writes about perichoresis, but even here she refers to the distinctions as
parts.[3]
(172-73) The problem for Tickle is that she sees the ages divided into
different manifestations of the Trinity which is itself an old heresy. And the
emphasis in the heresy is always on the time of the Spirit which is always
contemporary with whichever particular person or group is promoting the
theology.[4]
As
in The Great Emergence the authority
of Scripture is also questioned in this book in several places. Tickle first of
all suggests what is needed for authority—which
in itself is scary, in another place she offers what she believes will be the
authority. Her idea of what is needed is:
… Emergence Christianity, hopefully in conjunction
with other communions within the faith, is free to discover and acknowledge an
authority based on the paradigm of the kingdom of God on earth. At the same
time, however, it must also discover and acknowledge an authority, if
possible, that provides for Christians a
peaceful cohabitation with the political or secular authority that frames the
physical life … (193)
Tickle
believes that Emergence Christianity has and does use both Scripture and story as
a “code.” They will also use community, in prayer, as the “agency” for finding
authority within the code of Scripture and story. Tickle asks “what shall
animate the union of those two and make of them a sacred authority.” (206)
The
final big doctrinal issue that is addressed by Tickle as it relates to
Emergence Christianity is the atonement. She calls it the bitterest question.
Tickle, like some before her, writes as though Scripture has nothing at all to
say about the atonement. But this is also a misunderstanding. Atonement theories
are theories about how the atonement works—not about whether the atonement is
true or not. And all of the theories if understood properly work together.
But
evidently Emergence Christians, alongside feminist theologians and progressives
consider the death of the Son child abuse. Tickle writes:
For Emergence Christianity—and here there is
more unanimity than in some other areas of belief—the concept of an omnipotent
and omniscient God who could find no better solution than that to the problem
of sin is a contradiction of the first order . Even more repugnant is the
notion that, if penal substation as it is popularly and colloquially understood
today is indeed the correct understanding of what happen at Calvary, then
Christians are asked to accept as Father a God who killed his only Son. (197)
Tickle
is quick to explain that those who believe in substitutionary atonement would
reply that it is God who sacrifices himself. But she believes that most would
not understand and perhaps the better way would be to follow the views of Greek
Orthodoxy. But there is a bit of misunderstanding in all of this. While Orthodox
theology is more concerned to align salvation with the incarnation and the
Christians union with God, and protestant Christianity is more concerned with
atonement there are overlaps. And Orthodoxy would not say that Christ did not
die for our sins, however they would, wrongly I believe, insist Christ was not
a substitute for us.
But
the more important position is the biblical text—which includes Jesus’ death
for our sin as well as our union with Christ.
For while we were
helpless, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly. … But God
demonstrates his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by his blood, we shall
be saved from the wrath of God through him. For if while we were enemies we
were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, having been
reconciled we shall be saved by his life. (Romans 5: 6, 8-11)
I have been crucified
with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the
life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God who loved
me and gave himself up for me. (Gal. 2:20)
Here
and there Tickle’s information is interesting and some of it is new. The
pictures in the middle of her book with written explanations about their
meaning are helpful as is her annotated bibliography. But there is so much
misinformation including a rigid, twisted view of church history, that Emergence Christianity is more problematic
than helpful. Church history is sad yet good, bitter with sin, joyous with
saints, bloody with martyrs, glad with charity and gloriously full of the work
of the Trinity. And it’s foundations, essentials and faith will not change.
[1]Oscar
Romero, The Violence of Love: The Words of Oscar Romero, trans., James R.
Brockman, forward, Henri Nouwen, reprint, (London: Fount Paperbacks, Collins
1989). 10 Quote found at, “Liberation
Theology and whippoorwills.”
[2]
Tickle places all those involved in Village Church, www.emergentvillage.com as belonging
to Emergent rather than emerging.
[3]
Tickle states that the idea of perichoresis,
the understanding of the communal relationship between the persons of the
Trinity, belongs to the Greek Orthodox; perhaps it does but I first learned of
this term from an excellent Reformed professor, James Torrance.
[4]
See for instance, Phyllis
Tickle: The Age of the Spirit
4 comments:
Great review. I found Tickle's earlier work reason enough to avoid this one. Her willingness to group movements, people, and historical eras into useful categories makes her an absoulte master of lame generalizations. The hype over her work is frankly hard to understand, except that she captializes on the overwhelming self-interests of the present generation.
All in all, her work appears like a semi-Christianized rehash of Marilyn Ferguson's "The Aquarian Conspiracy"--an epic tome of New Age wishful thinking--the fruit of which has been nil.
While this book is likely to fuel the flames of many younger Christian's lust for historical significance, its contribution to the Church's self-understanding is negligable.
Noel,
Thanks. You said in a few words what I tried to say in too many. I had not thought to compare Tickle's book to The Aquarian Conspiracy-but it fits.
I am not an intellectual; nor do i support them. I can tell your free from intellectual debate and college dissertation; that this book reflects postmodern Western pseudo-Protestantism. Of which all churches are a part of--to a higher or lesser degree. Its just that the Emergents want to completely topple those institutions not merge with them.
You want college grade for instances? Compare what has happened since the 60's, to now.
It does reflect post-modernism. I don't believe all churches are a part of that-the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.
Post a Comment