Tickle, Phyllis - The Great Emergence: How Christianity is Changing and Why

[Ryan Plott]

In her book, The Great Emergence, Phyllis Tickle seeks to answer three questions of the emergent movement present in the church. Those questions are: What is it? How did it come to be? Where is it going?

What is it?-She frames it as a rummage sale, citing Reverend Mark Dryer who has observed that “every five hundred years the empowered structures of institutionalized Christianity; whatever they may be at that time, become an intolerable carapace that must be shattered in order that the renewal and new growth may occur.” (16) A rummage sale occurs because the common imagination of the group and the story of the community have suffered damage. Former rummage sales dealt with the issue of Scripture and the authority of the Church.

This current rummage sale that awaits the church is the Great Emergence, following the Great Reformation, the Great Schism, the ascension of Gregory the Great to the papacy, and the coming of Christ. It is meant to give the answer to the irreparable damage given to sola scriptura and to find a new sense of authority.

No justification is given to why these dates are chosen over other dates in Christianity other than the fact her choosing. She fails to interact with any of these dates beyond naming them, excepting the Great Reformation. Because of this, her work became suspect in my mind.

How did it come to be?-Previously stated, it began with the dissatisfaction surrounding sola scriptura Tickle states the flaw in this authorial stance when she notes that if five people read the same document, there will probably be three different interpretations. This led to the rise of denominations and Tickle states that “denominationalism is a disunity in the body of Christ and, ironically, one that has a bloody history.” The origin of this history is surveyed through the Renaissance, the fall of Constantinople, the rise of Protestantism, Gutenberg, and the challenge of Copernicus to the institution of the church. This made the church more willing to accept Scripture being the new source of authority, but not for very long.

She cites Darwin, Faraday, Freud, Jung, Einstein and Heisenberg as those that began to compete with Scripture as the narrative in popular thought that began to sway the minds of the populace through mediums such as radio, television, and the internet. These ideas began to question the foundation of such things as the soul, God, prayer, self, and knowing. Fundamentalism is portrayed by Tickle as the fallback position for those who wish to retain the idea of sola scriptura. This, coupled with literary deconstruction, led to the conclusion that “all writing—be it sacred or secular—has no innate meaning until it is read and, therefore, has no meaning outside of the circumstances and disposition of the reader.” This led to the quest for the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith since “the divine authority of Scripture was decentralized, subject to the caprices of human interpretation, turned into some kind of pick-and-choose bazaar for skillful hagglers.” (82)

This section of the book is fair and accurate except for the totalizing way she views denominations. It is clear that little or no thought is given by Tickle to interact with the positive contributions that denominations have brought to the church.

Where is it going?-Tickle gives us a hint as to where this can be found in her mention of the contributions of the Pentecostal movement of speaking in tongues to the emergent church. She states that when “forced into a choice between what a believer thinks with his or her own mind to be said in the Holy Scripture and an apparently contradictory message from the Holy Spirit, many a Pentecostal must prayerfully, fearfully, humbly accept the more immediate authority of the received message…Pentecostalism, in other words, offered the Great Emergence its first, solid, applied answer to the question of where now is our authority.” (85) This sounds dangerously close to going down the same slippery slope that Montanism and Tertullian went down.

I do not have the space to put in her diagrams but essentially there will be a gathering center where denominational lines will be blurred and groups will arise such as the emergers,” “emergents,” and the “hyphenateds". Theonomy and Orthonomy were explored as principles of truth in the emergent movement. Orthonomy is defined as a kind of correct beauty. Tickle states that “it means the employment of aesthetic or harmonic purity as a tool for discerning the truth.” Theonomy is the belief that “only God can be the source of perfection in action and thought. The question, or course, is how best to pierce through to His meaning.” (149-150) Tickle finally says what is the authority for the emergent movement and she cites what she calls "networked authority” or also "conversation." Where this movement is going cannot be charted but this is the face that this movement will take, according to Tickle.

Overall, this work was a piece of historical sholarship, and since it was a rather poorly done piece of historical scholarship I do not recommend it to others.

First, it is conversation that has driven the movement of the church through time, this working out what is all meant by the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. At the conclusion of her work, Tickle has done nothing more than state the obvious. Second, there is Tickle's bias towards the emergent church. I am someone who could be called a soft-emergent but this work of Tickle's came across as nothing but a power grab for the emergent movement. Her choice of historical events makes this work seem like a meta-narrative, the totalizing way she views denominations is unfair, and the divisiveness she fails to see that congregationalism will bring to the church could all be cited in support of this. Third, if her foundational truth of the 500 year rummage sale is rejected, as it should be, her work falls apart.

My heart broke when I read this book. It was well written, popular, and about the emergent church. I thought I was going to love it and found my assumption was wrong. If you do read it, please do not accept this work as the sole voice for the emergent church. There is a gap between the scholars and the pew and this must be addressed by the church, and is something the emergent church does very well. The gap between the scholar and the pew must be lessened using correct scholarship and right action. Phyllis Tickle is a sweet woman, I have met her, her book presents a good writing style, a broad knowledge of social and historical events, and it attempts to bridge the gap between scholars and the pew which is admirable. However, this does not legitimize her views of the church. Sadly, she uses neither correct scholarship nor right action in trying to bridge the gap. Since she is one of the few who is attempting to span this gap, it is her work that will be listened to by the populace and will make it only that much harder for the church when they do try to bring the pew and scholars together. Read instead Rodney Clapp's book A Peculiar People: The Church as Culture in Post-Modern Society. for a more fair and accurate piece of historical scholarship concerning the church and its present state.

[Ryan Scott]

Thanks for the review. Please take a look at the "Welcome to the Book Review" Thread for the format for thread titles here. We're trying to keep them all uniform to make searching easier. I've fixed this one, but for future reference, please see that thread at the top of the forum.

[Ryan Plott]

Will do.

[Benjamin Burch]

In her book, The Great Emergence, Phyllis Tickle seeks to answer three questions of the emergent movement present in the church. Those questions are: What is it? How did it come to be? Where is it going?

What is it?-She frames it as a rummage sale, citing Reverend Mark Dryer who has observed that “every five hundred years the empowered structures of institutionalized Christianity; whatever they may be at that time, become an intolerable carapace that must be shattered in order that the renewal and new growth may occur.” (16) A rummage sale occurs because the common imagination of the group and the story of the community have suffered damage. Former rummage sales dealt with the issue of Scripture and the authority of the Church.

This current rummage sale that awaits the church is the Great Emergence, following the Great Reformation, the Great Schism, the ascension of Gregory the Great to the papacy, and the coming of Christ. It is meant to give the answer to the irreparable damage given to sola scriptura and to find a new sense of authority.

No justification is given to why these dates are chosen over other dates in Christianity other than the fact her choosing. She fails to interact with any of these dates beyond naming them, excepting the Great Reformation. Because of this, her work became suspect in my mind.

How did it come to be?-Previously stated, it began with the dissatisfaction surrounding sola scriptura Tickle states the flaw in this authorial stance when she notes that if five people read the same document, there will probably be three different interpretations. This led to the rise of denominations and Tickle states that “denominationalism is a disunity in the body of Christ and, ironically, one that has a bloody history.” The origin of this history is surveyed through the Renaissance, the fall of Constantinople, the rise of Protestantism, Gutenberg, and the challenge of Copernicus to the institution of the church. This made the church more willing to accept Scripture being the new source of authority, but not for very long.

She cites Darwin, Faraday, Freud, Jung, Einstein and Heisenberg as those that began to compete with Scripture as the narrative in popular thought that began to sway the minds of the populace through mediums such as radio, television, and the internet. These ideas began to question the foundation of such things as the soul, God, prayer, self, and knowing. Fundamentalism is portrayed by Tickle as the fallback position for those who wish to retain the idea of sola scriptura. This, coupled with literary deconstruction, led to the conclusion that “all writing—be it sacred or secular—has no innate meaning until it is read and, therefore, has no meaning outside of the circumstances and disposition of the reader.” This led to the quest for the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith since “the divine authority of Scripture was decentralized, subject to the caprices of human interpretation, turned into some kind of pick-and-choose bazaar for skillful hagglers.” (82)

This section of the book is fair and accurate except for the totalizing way she views denominations. It is clear that little or no thought is given by Tickle to interact with the positive contributions that denominations have brought to the church.

Where is it going?-Tickle gives us a hint as to where this can be found in her mention of the contributions of the Pentecostal movement of speaking in tongues to the emergent church. She states that when “forced into a choice between what a believer thinks with his or her own mind to be said in the Holy Scripture and an apparently contradictory message from the Holy Spirit, many a Pentecostal must prayerfully, fearfully, humbly accept the more immediate authority of the received message…Pentecostalism, in other words, offered the Great Emergence its first, solid, applied answer to the question of where now is our authority.” (85) This sounds dangerously close to going down the same slippery slope that Montanism and Tertullian went down.

I do not have the space to put in her diagrams but essentially there will be a gathering center where denominational lines will be blurred and groups will arise such as the emergers,” “emergents,” and the “hyphenateds". Theonomy and Orthonomy were explored as principles of truth in the emergent movement. Orthonomy is defined as a kind of correct beauty. Tickle states that “it means the employment of aesthetic or harmonic purity as a tool for discerning the truth.” Theonomy is the belief that “only God can be the source of perfection in action and thought. The question, or course, is how best to pierce through to His meaning.” (149-150) Tickle finally says what is the authority for the emergent movement and she cites what she calls "networked authority” or also "conversation." Where this movement is going cannot be charted but this is the face that this movement will take, according to Tickle.

Overall, this work was a piece of historical sholarship, and since it was a rather poorly done piece of historical scholarship I do not recommend it to others.

First, it is conversation that has driven the movement of the church through time, this working out what is all meant by the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. At the conclusion of her work, Tickle has done nothing more than state the obvious. Second, there is Tickle's bias towards the emergent church. I am someone who could be called a soft-emergent but this work of Tickle's came across as nothing but a power grab for the emergent movement. Her choice of historical events makes this work seem like a meta-narrative, the totalizing way she views denominations is unfair, and the divisiveness she fails to see that congregationalism will bring to the church could all be cited in support of this. Third, if her foundational truth of the 500 year rummage sale is rejected, as it should be, her work falls apart.

My heart broke when I read this book. It was well written, popular, and about the emergent church. I thought I was going to love it and found my assumption was wrong. If you do read it, please do not accept this work as the sole voice for the emergent church. There is a gap between the scholars and the pew and this must be addressed by the church, and is something the emergent church does very well. The gap between the scholar and the pew must be lessened using correct scholarship and right action. Phyllis Tickle is a sweet woman, I have met her, her book presents a good writing style, a broad knowledge of social and historical events, and it attempts to bridge the gap between scholars and the pew which is admirable. However, this does not legitimize her views of the church. Sadly, she uses neither correct scholarship nor right action in trying to bridge the gap. Since she is one of the few who is attempting to span this gap, it is her work that will be listened to by the populace and will make it only that much harder for the church when they do try to bring the pew and scholars together. Read instead Rodney Clapp's book A Peculiar People: The Church as Culture in Post-Modern Society. for a more fair and accurate piece of historical scholarship concerning the church and its present state.

I remember her giving this lecture at YS a couple of years ago. I also remember her receiving by far the largest applause of any speaker that week. After some reflection, I remember thinking similar thoughts about that lecture as you've given here about the book. There's no doubt that I think some of her ideas about what is happening and what has happened at different times is true. However, I don't see any ground for her metanarrative, which really just seems to be an attempt to justify one's own program.

[Rich Schmidt]

Third, if her foundational truth of the 500 year rummage sale is rejected, as it should be, her work falls apart.

I don't know about that. Whether or not you accept the idea that these kinds of major rethinkings happen every 500 years or so, there are certainly periods of great upheaval in Christian history during which a whole lot of rethinking goes on! I'm not a fan of the rummage sale metaphor, but I remember liking her boat diagram and description of the things that make up the rope tying the boat to the dock, and what happens when that rope starts to fray. I also remember liking (while not agreeing with every detail of) her diagrams about the various church groups, how some are gathering in a new center while others are reacting toward the corners, etc.

It's been a while since I read the book. I checked it out from our public library, so I don't have it handy to refer to now. But the short version is that I thought she had some interesting and helpful ideas for understanding and communicating what we're going through right now. I didn't get too hung up on the parts I felt were weaker or that I didn't agree with.

[Jim Chabot]

I think that her foundational truth regarding the 500 year rummage sale is somewhat accurate. I have heard estimates between 400 and 600 years many times depending upon which events one cherry picks to populate their list.

I found her historical scholarship to be excellent and her facts irrefutable. Yet something seemed amiss. It took three full and painful readings of her book to fully discover that at every turn she takes sound solid facts and draws the wrong conclusion from them. It is almost like a sleight of hand trick that she uses here, I found it quite disturbing.

She describes each event accurately as reform, in each case the church has strayed unto its own understanding and each time it returns scripture to an authoritative role. She carefully chronicles each of the right turns, then without warning describes a left turn at this juncture. Crafty, is the word that comes to my mind.

[Ryan Plott]

Whether or not you accept the idea that these kinds of major rethinkings happen every 500 years or so, there are certainly periods of great upheaval in Christian history during which a whole lot of rethinking goes on!

Exactly, which is why I reject the 500 year hypothesis. Change in the church is not dictated by a calendar but by reflection on the Gospel. I'm not trying to say the Great Emergence isn't happening, I'm saying Tickle isn't putting forth the best piece of scholarship about it. Why those four dates? No real exploration is given to the hypothesis she borrows from Dyer. After reading this book I'm more interested in reading his work on this subject.

[/QUOTE] I'm not a fan of the rummage sale metaphor, but I remember liking her boat diagram and description of the things that make up the rope tying the boat to the dock, and what happens when that rope starts to fray. I also remember liking (while not agreeing with every detail of) her diagrams about the various church groups, how some are gathering in a new center while others are reacting toward the corners, etc.[/QUOTE]

I would say that the new center(gathering center) Tickle talks about is the church as it has existed for 2000+ years. We have continually been reaching forward to a more clear picture of what Christianity should be as the Kingdom of God on earth. She would have to read her church history and church fathers before making that claim without qualification. Her boat diagram and rope metaphor are excellent.

[/QUOTE] But the short version is that I thought she had some interesting and helpful ideas for understanding and communicating what we're going through right now. I didn't get too hung up on the parts I felt were weaker or that I didn't agree with.[/QUOTE]

That she does. However, I can't in good conscience accept the baby and the bathwater in a piece meant to be historical scholarship. It's just not how it works. Rodney Clapp in A Peculiar People does a much better job than Tickle in this matter. I'd recommend him to you after you finish Tickle's piece.

[Rich Schmidt]

Rodney Clapp in A Peculiar People does a much better job than Tickle in this matter. I'd recommend him to you after you finish Tickle's piece.

I own that book and have tried to read it twice in the past 15 years or so. I couldn't get through it either time. Not that it's too difficult -- I've read much "thicker" stuff! But by comparison, Tickle's writing was much more engaging.

I'll look for Clapp's book and give it a third try. :)

[Ryan Plott]

Yah, no arguments there. She's definitely a more engaging writer. Another read that might be good is Eric G. Jay's The Church: Its Changing Image Through Twenty Centuries I would hold that up as one of the best books available on the church's history, but it might not be considered engaging either.

btw, saw you live in valparaiso. Do you go to the CotN there?

[Rich Schmidt]

btw, saw you live in valparaiso. Do you go to the CotN there?

I pastor the little CotN in Valparaiso: Living Hope Community Church (http://livinghope.info). We started it in 2000. (The big CotN in town runs around 2,000 people each Sunday. We're closer to 80.) :)

Feel free to shoot me a Private Message or whatever if you want to talk more. I'd rather not clutter up the thread with our personal correspondence. :)

[James Diggs]

Exactly, which is why I reject the 500 year hypothesis. Change in the church is not dictated by a calendar but by reflection on the Gospel. I'm not trying to say the Great Emergence isn't happening, I'm saying Tickle isn't putting forth the best piece of scholarship about it.

I don't think the "the 500 year hypothesis" was meant to be something that ran like clockwork. The book is one painted with a broad strokes and I think for the purposes of the book this is fine.


Why those four dates?

More important than the dates was the cultural tensions at play in those times that effected how the church looked at the gospel. Again, she paints in broad strokes but this does not mean that she isn't making significant valid points about what the contributing issues where considering any of these times. For example, I thought the section on the reformation was insightful. While not being anywhere near comprehensive with all that was going on in the reformation, she pointed out how the reformation did not take place in a vacuum. She explored how a cultural movement toward literacy along with the invention of the printing press was as much a significant factor in the reformation's movement away from the view of authority as coming from the church toward a view of authority by "scripture alone" as any other factor in the reformation. These kinds of broad strokes are useful to helping us step back and view these things within the context of history. Her book was very much a wide angle lens view of Christian history from a more social/cultural anthropological perspective .


No real exploration is given to the hypothesis she borrows from Dyer. After reading this book I'm more interested in reading his work on this subject.

I think you have to count her book as a success in as much as it makes us want to explore all these things more from Dyers hypothesis to church history in general.

The book is an overview book and an introduction to an idea. it should be judged on those merits and I would highly recommend it to others as such.

[Ryan Plott]

I don't think the "the 500 year hypothesis" was meant to be something that ran like clockwork. The book is one painted with a broad strokes and I think for the purposes of the book this is fine.

That's not how she presents it in her piece. She applies this 500 year hypothesis to not only Christianity but Judaism, Islam, Hindu, and the Buddhist tradition. That suggests to me it does work like something similar to "clockwork" in her mind.


More important than the dates was the cultural tensions at play in those times that effected how the church looked at the gospel. Again, she paints in broad strokes but this does not mean that she isn't making significant valid points about what the contributing issues where considering any of these times. For example, I thought the section on the reformation was insightful. While not being anywhere near comprehensive with all that was going on in the reformation, she pointed out how the reformation did not take place in a vacuum. She explored how a cultural movement toward literacy along with the invention of the printing press was as much a significant factor in the reformation's movement away from the view of authority as coming from the church toward a view of authority by "scripture alone" as any other factor in the reformation. These kinds of broad strokes are useful to helping us step back and view these things within the context of history. Her book was very much a wide angle lens view of Christian history from a more social/cultural anthropological perspective .

Not saying she's not making valid points about today, some of the stuff is spot on. However, her use of historical scholarship, which is meant to justify her treatment of today, doesn't work out because the Reformation is all she deals with. She doesn't even work with the other three time periods. Christian history isn't even a theme of the book since she only deals with 500 out of the 2000 years it has existed. Clapp's piece is better from understanding the shift from where the church has been from the time of Constantine until now. There's no power grab element and it's wide angle lens of history is much more complete in comparison to Tickle's.


I think you have to count her book as a success in as much as it makes us want to explore all these things more from Dyers hypothesis to church history in general.

I suppose, but that's not what she's trying to do since it's not one of the three questions she's attempting to answer. An unintentional success at best. I'd still recommend Clapp's book over Tickle's.

[James Diggs]

I'd still recommend Clapp's book over Tickle's.

I guess I just see her book, as I do others, as part of the conversation. It doesn't have to stand alone as a comprehensive scholarly work. Instead it dialogues with the work of others; referencing things she herself does not dig deeply into. Other books may dig deeper into some details and contribute much to the conversation too. Perhaps that is more how I read books then how they may be intended because that's just the way I see it. I don't know.

Thanks for the review, I'll consider checking out Clapp's book too. It sounds like if we are judging which book is "better" it depends on what you are looking for. When I read Tickle's book I was thankful it wasn't a church history book as I was able to read what she said in the context of church history I had already studied; sometimes agreeing with her conclusions based on what I knew of history and sometimes not.

Sound's like you're saying Clapp's book goes into more details concerning Church history and that may be better for those who need or want more background as they read. Most of us, no matter how much we have studied church history, have room to learn a whole lot more. i know I do. So again, to me it is one big conversation and the more you read the more information and voices you include; which only makes the conversation better.

[Ryan Plott]

Fair enough. And that is correct, if a person is trying to understand the church's contemporary setting from a historical/sociological/cultural perspective I would hand them Clapp's book. Tickle should get a a voice, I just don't think her voice needs to be as loud as it is in order to understand where the church is today and how it got there. That's really my main concern. A lot of people I talk to read Tickle's book and accept it wholeheartedly. That leads them to dismiss denominations, consider the emergent church to be the church of the future(she upholds Brian McLaren as the Martin Luther of this generation), and ignore the voices of those who Tickle characterizes as those who are pulling back from and fighting what the emergence is trying to do.(such as myself, a member of a denomination and who is dividing Christianity by my mere involvement in a religious sect) I don't really like having to work through all that every time I speak to someone who has the same mindset as Tickle, so this is me trying to deal with an issue on the front end rather than the back end.

[James Diggs]

...That leads them to dismiss denominations, consider the emergent church to be the church of the future(she upholds Brian McLaren as the Martin Luther of this generation), and ignore the voices of those who Tickle characterizes as those who are pulling back from and fighting what the emergence is trying to do.(such as myself, a member of a denomination and who is dividing Christianity by my mere involvement in a religious sect)...

Hank, I consider myself pretty conversant with the emergent conversation and I don't see anything anti-denominational about it. In fact that is why there are so many "hyphenateds" (emergent-Lutherans, emergent-Methodist, emergent Nazarenes,.. ect) involved in the conversation; who participate in the conversation from the perspective of their own traditions. The "emergent church" is a conversation about how the Church universal is "emerging" within the context of this cultural shift in the west from modernity to post modernity.

As far as denominations go I don't think people have trouble with them as long as we don't think that whatever denomination someone is a part of is somehow "the only true church" and everyone else outside of that denomination is missing the boat- that is divisive. But many (maybe even most) denominations, including our own recognize that we are part of a much larger community of the church catholic (universal). The emergent church conversation is in no way a threat to denominations and traditions understood and embraced in a healthy way.


(she upholds Brian McLaren as the Martin Luther of this generation

I don't think this is true, and I certainly don't think that those who have been involved in the conversation for any significant time see Brian that way either. I love Brian, I have met him a few times and I think he has a great heart. But Brian isn't saying anything that many many others haven't been thinking, experiencing or saying to some degree or another already themselves (not that everyone agrees with everything he says either). Yes there are prominent voices out there, and Brian is one of them, but he didn't invent the "emergent church", and isn't the Martin Luther of the post modern generation. Post-modern culture is too "open source" for that.


...pulling back from and fighting what the emergence is trying to do.(such as myself..

Was it just your perception that the emergent church is anti-denominational that you felt the need to "fight" against it, or are there other things you feel that the emergent church "is trying to do" that you feel you need to "fight"?

[Ryan Plott]

Hank, I consider myself pretty conversant with the emergent conversation and I don't see anything anti-denominational about it. In fact that is why there are so many "hyphenateds" (emergent-Lutherans, emergent-Methodist, emergent Nazarenes,.. ect) involved in the conversation; who participate in the conversation from the perspective of their own traditions. The "emergent church" is a conversation about how the Church universal is "emerging" within the context of this cultural shift in the west from modernity to post modernity.

As far as denominations go I don't think people have trouble with them as long as we don't think that whatever denomination someone is a part of is somehow "the only true church" and everyone else outside of that denomination is missing the boat- that is divisive. But many (maybe even most) denominations, including our own recognize that we are part of a much larger community of the church catholic (universal). The emergent church conversation is in no way a threat to denominations and traditions understood and embraced in a healthy way.



I don't think this is true, and I certainly don't think that those who have been involved in the conversation for any significant time see Brian that way either. I love Brian, I have met him a few times and I think he has a great heart. But Brian isn't saying anything that many many others haven't been thinking, experiencing or saying to some degree or another already themselves (not that everyone agrees with everything he says either). Yes there are prominent voices out there, and Brian is one of them, but he didn't invent the "emergent church", and isn't the Martin Luther of the post modern generation. Post-modern culture is too "open source" for that.



Was it just your perception that the emergent church is anti-denominational that you felt the need to "fight" against it, or are there other things you feel that the emergent church "is trying to do" that you feel you need to "fight"?

I'm not really dealing with the emergent church's view of denominations. Mainly, I deal with what Phyllis Tickle is saying. I didn't include the page number in this post but she pretty much dismisses denominations. What she seems to be saying is that the church is lessened to denomination's presence. You're missing what I'm saying if you're applying my critique of her to every person in the movement since the book I'm reviewing is by Phyllis Tickle. I consider myself pretty conversant with the emerging movement as well, if you'd read my first post you'd see that I refer to myself as a soft-emergent. Here's a snippet. "My heart broke when I read this book. It was well written, popular, and about the emergent church. I thought I was going to love it and found my assumption was wrong. If you do read it, please do not accept this work as the sole voice for the emergent church."



Read the footnotes of her book. It's toward the end. Again, I'm dealing with what she says, not with every voice in the emergent movement.



You missed what I'm saying at that point of my post as well. You kinda misrepresented what I was saying with the bit you took out also. Your perception of me fighting against them is mistaken. I was referring to Tickle's mindset toward me as a denominational member who will stay a denominational member and become one of the four draw-back corners of the gathering circle. I'm not fighting against the emergent church, I'm just saying that Tickle's book misrepresents it. Read her book and you will see that she portrays the emergent movement as being opposite to denominationalism.

[Rich Schmidt]

I was referring to Tickle's mindset toward me as a denominational member who will stay a denominational member and become one of the four draw-back corners of the gathering circle. I'm not fighting against the emergent church, I'm just saying that Tickle's book misrepresents it. Read her book and you will see that she portrays the emergent movement as being opposite to denominationalism.

Like I think I said earlier, it's been a while since I read the book, but I don't remember her being anti-denominational. I thought she spoke positively about the hyphenateds that James referred to: those who remain within their denominations but also embrace at least parts of the emerging outlook. I'm surprised to hear you describe yourself as one of those drawing back into the corners, as those seemed to be (if memory serves) the people reacting against the emerging conversation, and you described yourself as soft-emergent. It sounds to me like one of us must be misunderstanding (or mis-remembering) that section of the book.... and it could easily be me.

[Ryan Plott]

Like I think I said earlier, it's been a while since I read the book, but I don't remember her being anti-denominational. I thought she spoke positively about the hyphenateds that James referred to: those who remain within their denominations but also embrace at least parts of the emerging outlook. I'm surprised to hear you describe yourself as one of those drawing back into the corners, as those seemed to be (if memory serves) the people reacting against the emerging conversation, and you described yourself as soft-emergent. It sounds to me like one of us must be misunderstanding (or mis-remembering) that section of the book.... and it could easily be me.

I'm meaning to say that's how I would be characterized by Tickle. She says something along the lines of denominations being a disunity in the body and one that has put a bloody chapter into the history book of Christianity. This is true, however, she fails to mention any positive aspects at all and then plays this disunity against the unity that the emerging church brings. She does speak positively of the hyphenateds, but only because they are meeting her standard of coming to the gathering center which the emerging church is at the center of. I like what the emerging church brings, I just think it's bringing something that's always been at the table, which is trying to figure out how to best be the church in light of the gospel of Christ. I'm interested in that too, which is why I can be characterized as a soft-emergent. This gathering center is the church as it has existed for 2000 years.

You're not mis-remembering Rich, it's just that's not all she says about denominations. When she does speak of them positively it's because they fall in line with the main power grab of the book.

This past year I've been a t.a. at ONU and part of my duties have been to facilitate a freshman-level doctrine class. Some of these freshman, along with some of my friends, hold up this book as if it is their manifesto. Because I like the emerging church, am interested in what they have to say, and enjoy their passion for the church, I have to deny the legitimacy of what this book has to say. It misrepresents what the emerging church thinks, as James has pointed out, and is a power grab for the emergent position, as I have tried to point out.

[James Diggs]

You missed what I'm saying at that point of my post as well. You kinda misrepresented what I was saying with the bit you took out also. Your perception of me fighting against them is mistaken. I was referring to Tickle's mindset toward me as a denominational member who will stay a denominational member and become one of the four draw-back corners of the gathering circle. I'm not fighting against the emergent church, I'm just saying that Tickle's book misrepresents it. Read her book and you will see that she portrays the emergent movement as being opposite to denominationalism.

Sorry Hank, it was not my intention to misrepresent what you said, that is why in my last post I tried to ask for clarification. You seem to be saying that you don't think the emergent conversation is anti denominational, but you think that Tickle's portrayal of the conversation is. I hope I got that right.

To that point, I have to agree with Rich that I also don't remember the book being anti-denominational in any way. Perhaps I just gave it a more generous read. But, like yourself I am part of the Nazarene denomination and so I would think that I would have picked up on any anti-denominational sentiments- but then again maybe I missed them.



...it's just that's not all she says about denominations. When she does speak of them positively it's because they fall in line with the main power grab of the book...

Just curious, what exactly do you see as the "power grab" in the book? Is it the emergent church, her portrayal of the emergent church, or something else? Do you think her portayal of a power grab (as you see it) in the book is reflective of a real power grab in the church today? If so what do you think it is, what is it over, and what is driving it?

[Ryan Plott]

Yep, talking about Tickle's portrayal.



Her privileging the emergent conversation above others, a metanarrative designed to promote her own program, and an incomplete historical analysis of the church's move through authoritative modes that places the emergent movement as the future of the church.

It's kind of hard to totalize the entire emergent movement. I've seen some people who work from that mindset and others that do not. Some people I've talked to authentically believe all of what Tickle is saying and some people just haven't heard the other sides of the conversation. So I guess yes and no as to whether it is reflective of the actual emergent church.

[Jim Chabot]

Yep, talking about Tickle's portrayal.



Her privileging the emergent conversation above others, a metanarrative designed to promote her own program, and an incomplete historical analysis of the church's move through authoritative modes that places the emergent movement as the future of the church.

It's kind of hard to totalize the entire emergent movement. I've seen some people who work from that mindset and others that do not. Some people I've talked to authentically believe all of what Tickle is saying and some people just haven't heard the other sides of the conversation. So I guess yes and no as to whether it is reflective of the actual emergent church.

Very good short summary of this books main thrust. I found the history that she presented to be highly detailed and accurate, I did think that she cherry picked the information to build her case for the 500 year cycle. The troubling aspect was she correctly attributed the authoritative change back to scripture at each interval, then she pulls a quick turn and states that the next change will be away from scripture as the basis for authority. She clouds the issue with her discussion of correct belief versus correct practice.

She does correctly mention that the emergent movement is not monosylabic and that many may say that she misrepresents them. That got me to thinking, then why bother to write a book about nothing, unless it's aim is to shape the movement.

Disclaimer; It's been a while since I read the book and I have no desire to read it again.

[John Reilly]

I think that her foundational truth regarding the 500 year rummage sale is somewhat accurate. I have heard estimates between 400 and 600 years many times depending upon which events one cherry picks to populate their list.

I found her historical scholarship to be excellent and her facts irrefutable. Yet something seemed amiss. It took three full and painful readings of her book to fully discover that at every turn she takes sound solid facts and draws the wrong conclusion from them. It is almost like a sleight of hand trick that she uses here, I found it quite disturbing.

She describes each event accurately as reform, in each case the church has strayed unto its own understanding and each time it returns scripture to an authoritative role. She carefully chronicles each of the right turns, then without warning describes a left turn at this juncture. Crafty, is the word that comes to my mind.

Hi All, I agree with Jim here. WHile I did not find Tickle's language offensive, i.e., use of terms like rummage sale, I must admit I did not even think about it. However I find the historical observations to be curious. These major historical events every 500 years iare in fact hugely signicant and contribute to our identity as Christians today. I might have used language such as Church Life Span and Developmental Crisis. I would begin with AD 70, the Destruction of the Temple marks an Identity crisis for the church away from being a sect of Judiasm. The Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon, AD 451, marks an identity crisis of the nature of Jesus CHRIST described in terms of hypostatic union. The Great Schism of 1054, marks an identity crisis of Orthodoxy. The Reformation, AD 1517, marks a crisis of soteriology. The Missional Rennaissance of 2005, marks an identity crisis embracing Missio Dei. I think the most value contribution Tickle makes for us today is the observation that when the church is deep within an identity crisis we can NOT see the outcome. Just as Martin Luther could not see the outcome of the reformation, today we can not see the outcome of the current identity crisis. As we hold the tension of traditionalism and emergent theology, being in the midst of the HEAT of the crucible, we can not see the outcome. The church wlll emerge from the current Identity Crisis and it will emerge reformed as in past crisis. I think this current crucible of change is opportunity for John Wesley's Theology of Love to emerge as a significant and profound Spirituality recognized by the world because of the powerful transformational witness of Christians actually living it out.

[Ryan Plott]

These major historical events every 500 years iare in fact hugely signicant and contribute to our identity as Christians today. I might have used language such as Church Life Span and Developmental Crisis. I would begin with AD 70, the Destruction of the Temple marks an Identity crisis for the church away from being a sect of Judiasm. The Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon, AD 451, marks an identity crisis of the nature of Jesus CHRIST described in terms of hypostatic union. The Great Schism of 1054, marks an identity crisis of Orthodoxy. The Reformation, AD 1517, marks a crisis of soteriology. The Missional Rennaissance of 2005, marks an identity crisis embracing Missio Dei. I think the most value contribution Tickle makes for us today is the observation that when the church is deep within an identity crisis we can NOT see the outcome. Just as Martin Luther could not see the outcome of the reformation, today we can not see the outcome of the current identity crisis. As we hold the tension of traditionalism and emergent theology, being in the midst of the HEAT of the crucible, we can not see the outcome.

We've talked about the four dates alot on the thread. I don't want to keep beating a dead horse and I agree these dates are important, I just think the church has been going through a continual identity crisis throughout it's history of reflection on the Gospel of Christ, not one every five hundred years .

I really like this article about Tertullian that Kaufman writes about the Church Father's view of the church through history when confronted with heresy.(Note, I'm not equating all of the emergent church with heresy, this is just a view of the church in these crucible moments.) "Peter Iver Kaufman, Tertullian on heresy, history, and the reappropriation of history,” Church History 60.2 (1991), 167-179. It's available through JSTOR so you can Google it if you want. In short, Kaufman posits the idea that Tertullian thought the church would continually be refined in message and practice as it progressed through history. If I'm reading your post right, this is what I hear you saying and I think you might enjoy it.




The church wlll emerge from the current Identity Crisis and it will emerge reformed as in past crisis. I think this current crucible of change is opportunity for John Wesley's Theology of Love to emerge as a significant and profound Spirituality recognized by the world because of the powerful transformational witness of Christians actually living it out.

I'm all about Wesley:smile:

[James Diggs]

We've talked about the four dates alot on the thread. I don't want to keep beating a dead horse and I agree these dates are important, I just think the church has been going through a continual identity crisis throughout it's history of reflection on the Gospel of Christ, not one every five hundred years .

Yea, I can agree with that. I don't think those 500 year dates happened in a vacuum without the days that came before them. I think those "markers" are only really helpful as handles to talk about what seems to be more obvious tipping points compared to others. This can be very subjective for sure and so I can see arguments for other or different "crisis points" too. But I do agree that church has always been going through a continual identity crisis throughout it's history of reflection on the Gospel of Christ.

[John Reilly]

I just recently read Henri Nouwen's book, "In the Name of Jesus," in which he uses the phases of church history to make a point. "Every time we see a major crisis in the history of the church, such as the Great Schism of the eleventh century, the Reformation of the sixteenth century, or the immense secularization of the twentieth century, we always see that a major cause of rupture is the power exercised by those who claim to be followers of the poor and powerless Jesus." The frequency of the crisis is less important than the reason or the crisis, which is the embrace of power rather than the embrace of love. If we as Nazarenes can fully embrace the Theology of Faith working by Love then I think God will use us as witnesses of Christ as Lord and as the hope of the church through heart holiness.