Live the Trinity

“Emergent” Christianity resembles the Borg (of Star Trek) to the extent that Phyllis Tickle and her book truly are representative. With one important flaw which I will mention later.

Let me state at the outset this is not the “full” review I had intended. A full and critical review article of The Great Emergence by Phyllis Tickle would take a long time and a lot of space. The book is so problematic that one hardly knows where to begin. Like performing an autopsy on a brontosaurus. So without supplying all the appropriate citations and evidence – and whoever reads this will be entirely right to complain – I will summarize for now my various points of critique.

Let me also share that I do not wish to demonize(?) Phyllis Tickle whom the book jacket describes as:

… [F]ounding editor of the Religion Department of Publishers Weekly. One of the most distinguished authorities and popular speakers on religion in America today… She is the author of more than two dozen books.

I am sure she is intelligent sweet sincere knowledgeable and does not write from ill motives. Indeed I first read this book with positive anticipation. The senior pastor heard her speak at a conference and spoke highly of her and her presentation. And of her book. I trust him and value his opinion. I assumed “I am going to enjoy this I look forward to what she has to say”.

By the second chapter I had red flags going up in my mind. After the last footnote of the last chapter I could only conclude the book was truly dreadful. I can only wonder what a competent and respected theologian and/or church historian would have to say about it.

One key question is “does she describe these social/cultural/religious shifts to which the church must respond? or does she believe in these changes?” I am convinced she does not describe but rather advocates. Where she says culture is taking us – that is where she believes the Christian movement should go. Without supplying all the evidence for this conclusion let me briefly suggest the reader observe carefully the language she uses to describe various trends and theological stances and religious groups. Notice what the assumed “center” is to which she compares everything else. (And yes I am invoking a form of deconstruction here.)

To prepare for a brief conversation about the book in staff meeting I jotted down a quick list of eighteen “problems” on the back inside page.

1. Her “this dramatic shift happens every 500 years” historical schema does not hold up. Can we really say 500 A.D. was that much more significant than 400? 600? 800? What of the Ecumenical Councils? I thinka strong case can be made for the edict of Constantine more than Pope Gregory the Great. Can we really say 1000 A.D. was the point of dramatic shift? Historical changes are rather gradual. According to Kallistos Ware in The Orthodox Church 1054 A.D. marked when East and West formally renounced each other – but they continued in relationship until the 13th century and the sack of Constantinople. Granted Tickle has a reply: “preformation and postformation”. The big shift was coming. The big shift continues to work itself out. But this strikes me as a cheap convenience. Such a schema allows one to choose nearly any point in history and say “here is the dramatic change!” and then explain away big changes before as “preformation” and big changes after as “postformation”. I will give her the Reformation – yes indeed a dramatic shift around 1500 A.D. (And if big shifts really occur more or less on schedule – then it is not 2017 A.D. yet.)
   This 500 year pattern is crucial to her thesis. If such dramatic changes occur every 500 years and are in a sense inevitable so the Church just needs to accept them as such and adapt/change with them – such as now around 2000 A.D. But if there is no such pattern than can be defended historically – there is nothing “inevitable” about the current shifts she describes (and well – one of the few good things about her book).
2. She describes theological positions poorly. How often she equates sola scriptura, scriptura sola with inerrancy and literalism. But this is patently absurd.  I know plenty of people who believe that the Bible is the primary or even sole authority for Christian faith and practice who do not necessarily assume inerrancy or especially literalism. At best – and this may be another one of the few good things she accomplishes – she describes how the Bible no longer is assumed to be a book that answers many of the deep questions that human beings have.
3. It is clear she has no use for the Bible as a source of authority – except insofar as we interpret it according to our own mercurial and protean understands of what “the Holy Spirit says to us”. This is classic American Episcopalianism.
4. She sets up almost incomprehensible metaphors which she controls. She declares which part of the metaphor one view is and which part of the metaphor is some group – and then the metaphor neatly demonstrates how that view loses and this group prevails. I like metaphors and use them frequently myself – but metaphors have limits. They describe but do not determine. I submit that Tickle uses metaphors to determine. “Sorry but your view/group is this part of the metaphor that gets changed or swept away by the inevitable rhythms of history”.
5. This leads to another critique – what I call her “imperious/imperial point of view”. She is like the third person omniscient voice in a novel who floats above history and has it all worked out. Her people are on the right side – the side of culture and history. Our people – and here I think the “losers” in her thesis are clearly those of a more “conservative” Christian bent – are doomed. Hard to explain and I would understand if the reader demands better examples.
6. She defines and then employs terms rather arbitrarily. What exactly does she mean by “corporeality” as opposed to “morality” and “spirituality”? She sets orthopraxy and orthodoxy against each other (more or less – there is one moment where she moderates this binary dichotomy) and throws sexual morality under “orthodoxy” rather than orthopraxy. You gotta be kidding me.
7. She clearly assumes that the Christian church does not only change how it communicates (form) but what it believes and practices (content) according to changes in the surrounding culture. Shifts in culture determine not only the form but the content of Christian mission. (I acknowledge that we may ask fairly, Does she describe or advocate this point? I submit she advocates and believe that careful reading supports this.)
8. Even this seems to be a contradiction. Toward the beginning of her book she seems to say the Church must change its structures (the “rummage sale” metaphor – which is actually another good thing she offers) but quickly it becomes clear that no she also has in mind its theology and practice. When the Virgin Birth (whatever the merits/details of that teaching) is true because it is “beautiful” not because it happened (or not) – surely that is advocating a fundamental shift in content. She does not just want the form/expression of the Christian church to change – she wants its theology to change.
9. Tickle marginalizes dissent. This is particularly evident on pages 136-137 in which people who do not buy into the “emergence” are reactors who are part of a general backlash and – notice her metaphor! – are retreating to the corners of her square diagram (137).
10. Tickle is a hypocrite – in my opinion. Sorry if that sounds harsh. She clearly sympathizes with the current leadership and direction of the Episcopal Church. (Notice the quote from Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Schori on the back jacket.) And also frequently describes “emergence” as breaking up authoritarian hierarchies. But the Episcopal Church for all its theological liberalism is indisputably becoming more authoritarian. The Presiding Bishop speaks and acts like a Metropolitan rather than a “first among equals” whose primary job is simply to call and moderate meetings of the House of Bishops.
11. She defines words in such a way as to privilege the viewpoint with which she sympathizes. Notice that when she sets theonomy against orthonomy (which clearly she associates with emergents – see 2nd to last paragraph of page 149). Orthonomy is a kind of “correct harmoniousness” or beauty (149). Aw shucks. Which means theonomy is what? Neither beautiful nor harmonious?
12. She gives way too much credit to emergents for being a vital and growing group. Christianity has grown “exponentially” in the hands of emergents?!? (121) If emergent Christianity is more or less liberal Christianity (and this is what I think she assumes although it is not entirely clear or consistent) then the statement is just nuts. Liberal Christianity – right or wrong – is dying rapidly. (To be fair conservative evangelical Christianity is not growing much – but it is not imploding at quite the same rate.) Where is Christianity truly growing “exponentially”? In the Global South thank you very much. And Global South Christians are not terribly liberal or emergent.
13. She says the new shift will get rid of the “Hellenization” of Christianity – which seems to mean more traditional/conservative Christian theology is very Greek and not very Hebrew/mystical. She is half right about this. But it is not clear that a more “Hebrew and mystical” Christianity necessarily means we suddenly say “the Resurrection is true because it is beautiful – and it does not matter whether it happened or not”. Moreover Eastern Orthodox Christianity is explicitly non-Hellenized. (Now whether that is true or not we can debate.) So here you have a non-Hellenized and very mystical form of Christianity – and it is again neither terribly liberal or emergent.
14. The whole book assumes a Western and Protestant point of view. Where is the “Church” going? How should “it” change? Why because modern Western culture and society are changing! Where does this leave the majority of Christians who are neither Western nor Protestant? The geographical center of Christianity is now in Africa. Africa! Should African and Asian Christians read this book and say “oh gosh yeah we sure need to change – I mean look at all these changes in modern American culture and society”? Why should the majority of Christians go where American Protestantism wants to go?
15. Tickle predicts a movement toward:
    … a system of ecclesial authority that waits upon the Spirit and rests in the interlacing lives of Bible-listening, Bible-honoring believers (153) [that "rewrites Christian theology" her words!] into something far more Jewish, more paradoxical, more narrative, and more mystical than anything the Church has had for the last seventeen or eighteen hundred years. (162)
    Tell me – having thoroughly demolished sola scriptura (and I would partly agree with that – partly!) and gotten rid of the Bible in favor of how individuals sense the Holy Spirit (with which I almost entirely disagree) – how can one speak of people who are “Bible-listening, Bible-honoring”? She must be joking.

I am sorry but this book strike me as almost entirely boilerplate religious liberalism. And its goal is to make us all stop resisting the changes we see because they are inevitable. The Church must follow culture/society.

By the way – if you think I am too hard on this book I suggest you take a look at the last footnote to the last chapter (164-165). I wonder how many people get to see what can only be described as the most insane and heretical paragraph in the entire work. See – the Great Emergence is also a bi-millennial phenomenon. The beginning to Christ the emphasis is on “God the Father”. From Christ to now on “Christ the Son”. From now to around 4000 A.D. (or CE which Tickle prefers – and I prefer CE also except most people do not understand it) the “primacy in worship and in human affairs of God the Spirit”. And yes indeed 4000-5000 will be the “consummate and glorious union of all three parts of the Godhead within space/time”.

That is just nuts. A healthy doctrine – and yeah I know Tickle is hard on things like “dogma” and “doctrine” but tough cookies – of the Holy Trinity does not allow anyone to say that Christ (or the not-yet-incarnate Second Person of the Trinity who is the Son) was not really around until… But especially that there has not been an emphasis on the Holy Spirit until now? Is she kidding?!? Hello – book of Acts? Pauline theology? The last two thousand years have been two millennia of the Holy Spirit thank you very much. And no Orthodox theologian could ever take this seriously – nor should they.

Let me conclude with a brief postscript.

Another “emergent” writer is Brian McLaren. When I read a generous orthodoxy – sort of a theological manifesto(?) for emergent Christians – I thought “wow I agree with almost all of this, I guess I would identify myself with the emergent movement”. But if Phyllis Tickle truly represents and describes accurately the true nature and direction of “emergent Christianity” (and we can debate that – conservative readers take note!) then suddenly I find myself wondering if the Emergent movement is as problematic as some conservative Christians would have us believe. I find myself suddenly suspicious of Brian McLaren – what about his other books? And of other “emergent” pastors/teachers/preachers who until now I have enjoyed and appreciated.

If Tickle’s book is what Emergents are really about and where really they are going – then I cannot join  them. Instead of selling me on the “emergence” Tickly has instead turned me against it.