A Voice in the Wilderness: Reflections on Phyllis Tickle’s The Great Emergence and Its Implications for the Episcopal Church of Tomorrow

“No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak, for the patch pulls away from the cloak, and a worse tear is made. Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; otherwise, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.” 

Matthew 9:16-17

On the cover of Phyllis Tickle’s The Great Emergence is a single portrait composed from four artistically distinct representations of Christ. By stitching together several different images, a new eclectic picture emerges, and in essence, the cover of Tickle’s work closely mirrors the book’s central argument of how the face of modern day Christianity is once again undergoing a semi-millennial upheaval as it morphs into a poly-blend of four main strands of "traditional American Christianity" (p. 133).

Tickle’s thesis has a few problems however, but nonetheless leaves church leaders of tomorrow with a handful of important and challenging questions about what effective ministry in the future will look like.

Argumentative Problems: Oversimplification, Logic, Inaccuracies

Tickle spends a majority of her book looking back at several of the sea changes Christianity has gone through over the last 2,000 years, and drawing parallels between them in order to argue that the modern day church is also in the midst of a similar dramatic change and may have some of the same outcomes including liturgical reform, doctrinal realignment, a new fresh spirit in both the new and old tradition, as well as wars and pandemics.

Tickle writes, “...the only way to understand what is currently happening to us as twenty-first-century Christians in North America is first to understand that about every five hundred years the Church feels compelled to hold a giant rummage sale...about every five hundred years the empowered structures of institutionalized Christianity, whatever they may be at the time, become an intolerable carapace that must be shattered in order that renewal and new growth may occur” (16).

Such a grand sweeping historical thesis would be truly important and illuminating for the church’s self-reflection, but unfortunately, at the end of the day, her historical analysis is simply too superficial to lift her ambitious thesis and her cursory treatment of historical facts leads almost inevitably to oversights, logical fallacies, inaccuracies, and unlikely conjecture. 

At the heart of Tickle’s historical analysis is the assertion that about every five hundred years the church goes through a major change: the time around Gregory the Great, the Great Schism, and the "Great" Reformation. The church has of course gone through great reform at these times, but the church has undergone many more dramatic events and changes than just those few. What about the dramatic socio-political shift in the fourth century under Emperor Constantine the Great? Or the ocean of theology poured out on the church by the great “Doctor of the Church” Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. Or the bi-continental revivals during “The Great Awakenings” whose theological narrative is still dominant today among a grand majority of evangelical Protestants in America?

For its entire life Christianity has been undergoing change and challenge; focusing on only the ones that happen every five hundred years is like drawing a constellation using only a few select stars in the sky: yes a picture can be created, but there are many more stars in the sky and more than just one picture that can be created with them.

A second problem is logic. Citing a skeptic is normally a ten yard penalty in productive discussions, but Hume's emphasis on the fallacy of inductive prediction is helpful in debunking Tickle's repeated claim that previous Christian periods of reform can help us understand and predict what will happen in the alleged current one.  For example, if someone had a bag of apples and pulled them out one at time and they all happened to be green does mean that one can logical conclude that the very next apple taken out of the bag won't be red. Put more specifically, even if there was a current reformer named Luther nailing 95 Theses to church doors, that still wouldn't mean that we could assume to understand anything about this new reformation or predict how it will unravel. The past simply cannot predict the future logically.

There are also several places where Tickle simply gets her history wrong. For example one of the most brazen errors occurs in her discussion over how Greek philosophy mutated Christian theology into a dualistic religion that then despised the physical temporal world (p. 161). Christianity undoubtably used and learned from Greek philosophy (specifically neo-Platonism and Stoicism), but it is completely untrue that Christianity therefore despised the physical world. The endless Arian controversies of the fourth century leave no room for doubt on that topic.

In addition to her troubles regarding previous times of great change in the Church, Tickle's prediction of the “Great Emergence” itself may also have some difficulties. The central tenant of her description of the Emergence is a Christianity that is blend of four currently distinct traditions. This sort of melting-pot theory was also the predicted result of the “Americanization” of many culturally distinct immigrants in the 18th century. However, it simply did not come to pass, and instead what emerged was a “salad bowl” of culture rather than a homogeneous blending of cultures. Perhaps then Tickle is incorrect in her prediction of such an ecclesiastical blending. Only time will tell.

Important Challenging Questions

Tickle’s historical thesis may need further development, but despite its deficiencies, her description of the Emergence itself it still raises crucially important questions that the church must face if her characterization of “The Great Emergence” is accurate.

One of the great unanswered questions that future church leaders are left with vis a vis emerging Christianity is similar to the central dramatic question raised in the critically acclaimed period drama “Downton Abbey:" how will Downton weather the financially trying and culturally changing times of the post War world? Up until the War, the Abbey's residents had blissfully and naively existed in their insular routines and had been coasting on timely infusions of capital despite being overstretched and financially mismanaged for years. 

Similarly, in the midst of such a metamorphosis of ecclesial culture how can the modern day church merge arcane ritual practices with modern sensibilities, continue to maintain huge aging physical edifices, train and employ expensive highly specialized staff, and still continue to benefit its local community in a meaningful way?

Will this new emergent melting-pot church turn out to be “The Great Abandonment” of the polity, principles, and property of the preceding parish? Will this new emergent spiritual revival spell financial ruin and the de-professionalization of ministry? Would that be entirely negative for the authenticity of the Church and God’s work in the world? Jesus once said that “you can’t put new wine in old wineskins,” does that mean that this new emerging spirit can’t be housed within the current structures of the Church without irreparably damaging each?

Darwin’s observation that species who adapt to a new environment have a better chance of surviving applies equally to the field of biology as it does to business and the church. If Tickle is correct and the environment is changing to favor those churches that can embrace a wide range of traditions, how then will the Episcopal Church will handle, weather, respond to, and thrive in this new environment? Is it ready, willing, and able to tweak its DNA to fit better with this new environment? Is it prepared for the conversation of longer teaching style sermons, fuller contemporary or charismatic worship experiences, more emphasis on Bible study, or the updating of its facilities to be more versatile? 

Phyllis Tickle’s The Great Emergence is a voice crying in the wilderness proclaiming the changing of a season, and can be a wake-up call to entrenched churches to repent and change their ways to receive new life in this next outpouring of the Spirit. It is the opinion of this author that the Episcopal Church is in a theologically advantageous position for this Emergence because within its very DNA exists a deep tolerance for a variety of voices and a rich tradition that balances “holding fast to that which is good” and “singing to the Lord a new song.”

Sources: 

Phyllis Tickle, The Great Emergence: How Christianity is Changing and Why (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2008).

Jesus Hearts His Church

The Church has been getting a lot of attention these days; but probably not the type it would like.

Several weeks ago there was a viral YouTube video titled “Jesus Hates Religion” that essentially argued that Jesus resents the religion that was founded after him because of its sins, and if you could only just scrape it all away and boil Christianity down to what’s really fundamental you’d be left with just following in the ways and teachings of Jesus.

In a similar vein, Newsweek recently ran a cover story, "Forget the Church: Follow Jesus”, which argued,
"Christianity has been destroyed by politics, priests, and get-rich evangelists. Ignore them and follow embrace him...If you stripped Christianity of the doctrines of the incarnation, resurrection, and the various miracles, the message of Jesus was the deepest miracle. And that it was radically simple...The difference between the real Jesus and the Church’s embellishments is as ‘diamonds’ in a ‘dunghill’."

According to this article if you simply scrape away all the extra trappings of the Church’s doctrines, following Jesus is really about the adherence to some simple moral rules and the Church is the enemy not the leader of such efforts.

Twenty million people viewed the YouTube video, there are millions of people who subscribe to Newsweek, and many other news agencies around the internet touted both as avant-garde heralds of lost truth; but are they right? 

The Plaintiff’s Merit

I think the first thing to say in response is “yes,” there is some merit to the arguments forwarded and allegations against the Church.

Follow Jesus!

First off, emphasizing that people should follow Jesus more closely is a great thing to advocate for. The Church desperately needs to re-evangelize itself to the way, life, and teachings of Jesus!

Theological Complications  

The plaintiff’s also have a point that theology today does seem a bit “embellished.” It doesn’t take a PhD in church history to sense that what used to be just Jesus’ simple teachings about loving God and neighbor seem to have become over the centuries a labyrinth of endlessly nuanced dogmatic theology with more volumes than one could possibly read in several lifetimes. If Christ is for the huddled uneducated masses then why can only PhD's seem to makes sense of it sometimes? The genius simplicity of the Gospel does seem to be obscured.

Moral Sins

In addition to theological obfuscation, the Church has also had it’s moral issues over the course of history and we simply need to admit that. There have been endless arguments, pope’s that belonged in jail, priests who have abused children, the church has caused wars and played in dirty politics. And yes, this still goes on today with money loving tv preachers, politically power hungry tools who twist the Gospel to meet their purposes, and priests who molest the defenseless. 

Organizational Confusion

To make things worse the Church is also an obvious exponent of "organized religion" and therefore immediately suspect and dubious in the popular mind. Perhaps this criticism is not also without its merit; the institutionalized Church can indeed have too much red tape, too much bickering, and it doesn't always spend it’s money in the right ways. 

An Apologetic of the Church

So yes, the various critiques of the Church that are going around these days have some merit.  But I don’t think it means that we should all abandon the church. Rather, it means that we are in need of mercy, that we need God’s grace, and that we have a lot to say we’re sorry for; but it doesn’t mean that we should give up on God’s dream to have a people who worship him, who love each other, and who reach out to the world by inviting the lost into this holy community.

Moreover, I think that there is much that can be said for in defense of the Church and it’s necessity in every Christian’s life. 

Epistemological Necessity: 

How does someone who claims to be "just following Jesus" know who Jesus is in the first place? You can't just look out your window and derive the stories of Jesus! The Bible didn't just fall from outer space, but rather it is the ancient first generation witness of the Church who wrote, collected, and painstakingly passed this specific set of holy writings down for the edification of all Christ’s followers. 

The Bible is one of the greatest gifts of the Church and to tote around a Bible and then to say that you don't need the Church sounds a lot like an ungrateful sophomoric rebellious teenager.

Theological Necessity: 

Furthermore, even with your Bible in hand you are still going to need the Church to help  you know what it means. We are separated from the Bible by oceans of time, space, culture, and langue and therefore interpreting these ancient texts is best left to highly trained professionals. 

The Bible may tell you "plainly" somethings about Jesus but it doesn't parse out the doctrines of the incarnation, Christ's work on the cross, how Jesus relates to the Father and the Holy Spirit, or many other theologically complicated issues. If you are going to follow Jesus and not just make up your own version of the Christian faith then you're going to need the help of the great doctors of the Church. 

If you don't listen and learn from the Church on these matters and instead do this doctrinal work yourself then how is it that you're not just making stuff up when you "follow Jesus?" And if you're just making stuff up then what is really behind your judgements, and how are you going to avoid simply creating a religion for yourself that justifies exactly who you already are?

Moral Exemplars

Additionally, even with a Bible and sound doctrines in hand, how are you going to know what it looks like to actually follow Jesus rightly? Who are going to be your moral exemplars? Here again you are going to need the Church to show you how to live and what it means to live rightly. The Church’s saints are the living interpretations of what it means to read scripture rightly and to follow Jesus. 

Sacramental Benefit: 

Looking at courage and morality of the Church’s saints can be a bit like looking at a pro-football team from the sidelines and wishing that you too could do what they did. Even if you want to follow Jesus through the examples of the saints, how are you going to become capable of such things? Can you do this through mere herculean effort with your own broken and sinful will power? Probably not. In order to become a saint you are going to need the effective empowerment of the Church’s sacraments. 

Abundant Grace

Moreover, if “following Jesus” is all about your hermited personal spiritual enrichment then who is going to encourage you, or pray for you? Where is there room for Christian community in your life? If “following Jesus” isolates you from the benefit of Christian community the you will have missed one of God’s greatest blessings: 

" 'Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!' (Psalm 133:1)...It is not simply to be taken for granted that the Christian has the privilege of living among other Christians...It is by the grace of God that a congregation is permitted to gather visibly in this world to share God’s Word and Sacrament. Not all Christians receive this blessing” 
(Bonhoeffer, Life together)

The Church is not just an institutionalized burden of "following Jesus", but a gracious ark where tired travelers can come together and be in community. 

Incarnational Inevitability of Bureaucracy: 

But once you get yourself into a community questions of polity, politics, and management are going to arise. Who is going to lead? What happens if there is a disagreement among you? What projects are you going to do? Who controls the money? Where will you meet? You are going to need some rules, leaders, policies, and red tape! The fact is that you will always have to deal with politics in the church, it's an inevitable fact because whenever you get real, imperfect, people together you’re going to have to navigate the various conflicts of interest. 

Other Responses:

In a direct response to the video above this talented priest makes many of the same points I've made in a creative way.

Final Thoughts: 

I’m in my final paragraph which means that I have only a little bit more time to drive this point home so let me put this simply: those people who say that they don’t need to go to church to be christian are indeed desperately in need of the family of God and it’s gifts in order to follow Jesus in the way they want to. 

Honestly, how many prayers do those people say for their friends and neighbors and loved ones, how much scripture do they read rightly, how many songs do they worship God through, how many sermons do they hear, how many lessons do they hear or teach, how do they receive the sacraments, how many friendships do they form with other christians, how many Lobsterfests do they put on, how many Habitat Houses do they build all by themselves, how many Special Sessions do they run, do they baptize themselves?

If you’re a baseball player who doesn’t have a team then you’re not going to play a lot of ball and you’re not going to get any better. The same is true for faith. Look around next time you’re at Church; you all ARE the church; you ARE christ to each other. And you are lucky to have one another, and we are lucky to have a God that allows us to have friends of faith.  

Forty Days of Doxology & Drucker: Integrity in Leadership

As an accidental and perhaps not a bit ironic Lenten discipline, I've recently been reading a new sort of "daily devo." It's a secular 365 focused solely on what we in the industry of ministry piously call "the jars of clay," ie the worldly, profane, administrative, managerial, financial, marketing, leadership, communications, and other business type aspects of the church. I have to confess that I'm throughly enjoying Peter Drucker's masterful and thoughtful guidance along this journey. After all, if we in church leadership are going to have to convey the "light of Christ" in these worldly "jars of clay" then we might as well have the best darn jars as possible lest we spil Christ on the floor! ;)

I am hoping that this blog post will be the first of many of its kind, and in this series I'm going to explore and extrapolate what implications Drucker's ingenious insights might have in a parochial setting. But enough prolegomena, let's get this thing started.

Doxology & Drucker #1: Integrity in Leadership
Drucker's eclectic compilation of aphorisms begins with a focus on the necessity of integrity in leadership: "The spirit of an organization is created from the top. If an organization is great in spirit, it is because the spirit of its top people is great. If it decays, it does so because the top rots...No one should ever be appointed to a senior position unless top management is willing to have his or her character serve as the model for subordinates." Drucker goes on to argue that character in the highest ranks of leadership is not only of primary importance but also something that can't be faked and something that affects the entire organization from the top down.

Given that Drucker is correct, which could be debated, then there seems to be several imports for the contemporary church, but three jump out at me immediately.
          The first is that if your church's polity allows you to "call" your own pastor, then letters of reference and anecdotal testimonies from previous staff and parishioners about his/her character should weigh much more heavily on the considerations of the search committee than transcripts from seminary, or even the quality of his/her preaching (God forbid!).
          A second implication seems to be that if you are "Church shopping" then high on the list of your considerations should be your gut feeling towards the sr pastor and what your potential future fellow parishioners say about him/her. Perhaps then in addition to evaluating a church's facilities, worship style, extra curricular offerings, and music you should also schedule some one-on-one time with the leader to judge for yourself if he or she is a person of integrity.
         A final implication seems to be that if a Church's spirit is broken then one of the first places to start looking for the problem is in the pastor's office. Or to put positively, one way of preventing a Church from becoming dishearten would be to make sure that the pastor is also taken care of.

Those are all the thoughts I've got on Drucker today, what are your thoughts? Comment below and join in the conversation!