A Rose That Blooms Every 500 Years (by Rose Marie Berger)
At the Associated Church Press conference two weeks ago in Ft. Worth, Texas, I heard Phyllis Tickle, founding editor of the religion department at Publishers Weekly, speak about Christianity's every-500-years growth spurts. In her talk (and forthcoming book The Great Emergence: How Christianity is Changing and Why), Tickle emphasized that Christianity is going through one of these "spurts" right now.
Tickle calls our present historical moment (read: the last 100 years) "Emerging Christianity." (This is not precisely the same thing as the self-identified "emergent church" networks, but there may be similar characteristics.) Historically, these great emergences are sometimes symbolized by a rose blooming forth from the rubble.
"Emerging or emergent Christianity is the new form of Christianity that will serve the whole of the Great Emergence in the same way that Protestantism served the Great Reformation," she said.
Emerging Christianity, posits Tickle, brings together – rather than divides - the best practices of the Christian traditions, practices that have been divided in the church and held within denominations for 500 years. It also looks back at ancient church practices and tries to apply them in fresh ways in the post-modern era.
Brian McLaren's newest book Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices, also examines Emerging Christianity as a "way of life" rather than a "set of beliefs." McLaren reclaims ancient Christian spiritual practices -- fixed-hour prayer, fasting, observing the Sabbath -- for use today. Dallas Willard has been playing with this same idea in his call to move the Christian church away from "sin management" and toward "discipleship" (see The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God).
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams took up a similar theme in an April lecture titled The Spiritual and the Religious: Is the Territory Changing?
Williams opens his remarks by quoting U2's Bono: "I'm not into religion. I am completely anti-religious. Religion is a term for a collection, a denomination. I am interested in personal experience of God."
Williams brilliantly unpacks the "spiritual, not religious" conundrum:
The Christian alternative to the post-religious spirituality outlined earlier is not simply "religion" as some sort of intellectual and moral system, but the corporately experienced reality of the kingdom, the space that has been cleared in human imagination and self-understanding by the revealing events of Jesus' life.
… Faced with the claims of non-dogmatic spirituality, the believer should not be insisting anxiously on the need for compliance with a set of definite propositions; he or she should be asking whether what happens when the Assembly meets to adore God and lay itself open to his action looks at all like a new and transforming environment, in which human beings are radically changed.
I've been at Sojourners for 22 years. At its best, Sojourners (in all its manifestations as ministry, Christian intentional community, church, magazine, Christian communications nexus, movement mobilizer, etc.) has been an experiment in Emerging Christianity.
We are evangelical in our roots and ecumenical in our expression—drawing on the best of Christian practices that are held denominationally. For example, when we are operating at our best, we try to take scripture as seriously as Protestants, understand communion as deeply as Catholics, rely on the Spirit as passionately as Pentecostals, preach a prophetic word of good news as zealously as evangelicals, and live a contemplative life rooted in the ever-present Imago Dei as humbly as Orthodox.
As a cluster of Christians, we strive to practice "open-source" spiritual leadership, or "priesthood of all believers," or authority rooted in gifts of the Spirit. Additionally, we understand following Jesus as a "way of life"—the Tao of Jesus, the Jesus Road. This "way of life" leads us also to take the doctrinal teachings of the church very seriously -- because we've lived them, not (necessarily) because we signed a contractual arrangement or took a loyalty oath with the church.
I'm grateful to Phyllis Tickle, Brian McLaren, Archbishop Rowan, Karen Ward, the New Monastics, and others who are keeping our rosebush tended.
As the 15th-century hymn celebrates, "Lo, how a Rose e're blooming from tender stem hath sprung!"
Rose Marie Berger, a Sojourners associate editor, is a Catholic peace activist and poet.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I’ll admit I’m a little confused as to what “emerging/Emergent Christianity” is. I don’t see the need to add an adjective to Christianity in order to define Christianity as a “way of life”. Christianity has always been a way of life. But I’m wondering, does the Emergent Church or Emerging Christianity not have a set of beliefs? Or do they just not believe that a set of beliefs is the sum total of our faith? That you also have to live these beliefs out… Or is Emergent/emerging just a way of saying "I'm not like those Christians that don't represent my faith well".
Anyone have an idea?
Posted by: Eric | May 8, 2008 12:38 PM
Well, I've explained this before, but since these threads disappear pretty quickly into the netherworld of cyberspace, let me try again.
An emergent is a stunted tree that grows beneath the canopy of a rain forest. Normally it just sits there and does nothing. However, when one or more of the large trees is destroyed, the emergents are ready to spring up and take their place.
The central belief of the emergent church, as I understand it, is that Christianity is in more trouble than most people realize. That is because there is a major shift in worldviews going on, with the assumptions of Western modernity increasingly being called into question in our multicultural, global society.
The central message of the emergent church is that this shift is not a bad thing, since the basic tenets of modernity were never particularly friendly to religion in the first place. Thus, the new worldview provides fertile soil.
However, as is the case whenever soil is fertile, all kinds of poisonous things can grow up as well. Thus, there is a strong need to establish an emergent form of Christianity that will be poised to grow up in the new environment. Even if it were possible, firming up the details of what that Christianity will look like is less important, at this point, that seeing its necessity and preparing for the coming shift.
And, of course, if all of this turns out to be completely wrong-headed, the emergent church will remain an emergent: invisible, largely useless, and still ready.
Hope that gets the gist of it.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 8, 2008 12:49 PM
An "emerging church" is any church that makes a concerted effort to reach the post-modern world. It would be fair to say that, for example, Greg Boyd and Marc Driscoll are emerging.
The emergent church is a church movement that would describe itself as "emerging". Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Rob Bell and The Campolos are part of the emergent church movement.
IMO, the former is a necessary response to the way the world communicates, and may well signal a regeneration of the church itself. The latter has staked very liberal theological grounding (e.g. denying the existence of hell, a very low view of the Pauline texts), and has a more narrow following.
Much of the confusion comes from the fact that a lot of churches who might consider themselves "emerging" have renounced the teachings of the emergent church. Driscoll is a prime example of this. Further muddying the waters is the emergent church's rejection of labels, which makes distinctions very difficult to discern.
I am inclined to think that the emerging discussion will continue, but that the emergent church is more of a fad.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 8, 2008 1:55 PM
Kevin, I think Tony Campolo, at least, would be very surprised to learn that he denies the existence of hell and has a very low view of the Pauline texts.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 8, 2008 2:15 PM
Tony might believe in a hell (Bart does not) but certainly seems to hold a low view of the words of Paul, based on his writings here. He has stated that when they conflict with the words of Jesus, that he gives the "red letters" more weight.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 8, 2008 2:23 PM
And yet Tony C. has adhered strongly to Paul's comments on sexuality. That doesn't sound like a low view to me. I do understand your point, but I think it does a disservice to the complexity even of the smaller, "emergent" group you discuss above to imply that there are only two ways to look at, e.g., Paul: high and (very) low. Tony's view is clearly in-between but on the high side.
In any case, my comments above, although they use the word "emergent" in its actual meaning, were meant to apply to the broader, "emerging" movement you describe.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 8, 2008 2:31 PM
Another nonymous and Kevin,
Thanks for providing some insight.
Eric
Posted by: Eric | May 8, 2008 2:33 PM
If the Emergent Church is looking back to ancient Christian practices, then why not join the older confessions (Catholic, Orthodox, Copt, etc)?
Posted by: aaron | May 8, 2008 3:05 PM
"And yet Tony C. has adhered strongly to Paul's comments on sexuality."
Tony is not the only member of the emergent church.
"In any case, my comments above, although they use the word "emergent" in its actual meaning, were meant to apply to the broader, "emerging" movement you describe."
I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 8, 2008 3:32 PM
[Further muddying the waters is the emergent church's rejection of labels, which makes distinctions very difficult to discern.]
Yes, kevin s, it is awful when we can't conveniently maintain control by being able to label everyone precisely. I think Jesus was doing exactly this when he contrasted the presumed bad tax-collector with the good pharisee; and also the good priest and levite with the bad Samaritan.
Yet, Rose Marie Berger has done an appalling thing by embracing numerous labels.
[We are evangelical in our roots and ecumenical in our expression—drawing on the best of Christian practices that are held denominationally. For example, when we are operating at our best, we try to take scripture as seriously as Protestants, understand communion as deeply as Catholics, rely on the Spirit as passionately as Pentecostals, preach a prophetic word of good news as zealously as evangelicals, and live a contemplative life rooted in the ever-present Imago Dei as humbly as Orthodox.]
Of yet another label,
Igor
Posted by: Deryll | May 8, 2008 3:59 PM
The extent to which "following" Jesus requires believing "the right things" about Jesus is a complex issue for which no easy answer exists.
Kevin S. seems to believe that because Tony Campolo calls himself a "red letter" Christian, he therefore must think that the words of Christ in the gospels carries more weight than the words of Paul. While I don't think that's entirely the case with Campolo, Kevin's concern is not without merit. To what extent the teachings of Jesus are to be understood in the light of Paul's letters, and to what extent Paul needs to be understood in light of the recorded sayings of Jesus is a legitimate question and one for which there is no simple answer.
On the "Evangelical Manifesto" thread we can read comments from a poster identified as ed cyzewski about the Episcopal situation as discussed by Os Guinness and Rev. Yates in a Wash. Post article. Cyzewski agrees with Yates and Guinness that many elements within the Episcopal Church have abandoned the faith because they deny basic Christian doctrines like the Resurrection, the Ascension, and the Crucifixion. To whatever extent that is true within the Episcopal Church, it's hard for me to imagine how anyone who denies these basic tenets of Christianity could in any authentic way be "following Jesus." My mind just doesn't fathom it.
But on the other hand, I'm more than aware of some individual congregations that put such a premium on "believing the right things" that I have to wonder whether they too are "following Jesus" in spirit and truth or whether they're just following their self-imposed doctrinal convictions. I try not to judge in these matters, but some of the people I know who live in these traditions are themselves very judgmental.
The "emerging movement" in all its guises could be pointing us to the importance of practice ("orthopraxy" and not just "orthodoxy")--of really trying to follow Jesus rather than just believing the correct things. I know that some of these ancient practices are finding a home in my own denomination. I think that's a good thing.
But doctrine is also important. Our spiritual ancestors from the early Christian centuries argued strenuously over many doctrinal issues and forged "orthodox" belief in the furnace of these debates. It's difficult to ignore the importance and value of this history.
As in many things, balance is probably the goal here. But finding that balance, and knowing when the line has been crossed in either direction, may not be very easy. The bottom line for me is that both believing and following are important.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | May 8, 2008 7:50 PM
Nice article. It shows that the emerging church is bigger than just the "emergent movement." Emerging Christianity is an acknowledgement that God is bigger than our theology, bigger than our denominational traditions, that God is still at work in our lives and history today. There are important things to learn here for all Christians. I think it was Brian McLaren who said that the emerging movement is causing evangelicals to learn more about social justice and mainline Christians to learn more about miracles. It's a healthy thing for both liberal and conservative Christians to be asking questions about their faith traditions in this time of rapid change. I don't believe God is through with the church yet.
Posted by: AMG | May 9, 2008 8:20 AM
Don: I like the way you describe the tension between holding right doctrine and being overly dogmatic.
I think prayer is one key. Belonging to a strong community of believers who can rein in excess tendencies is another.
Posted by: carl copas | May 9, 2008 10:48 AM
Thanks, Carl. I especially agree about belonging to a strong community.
BTW, did you ever get my email re. Niebuhr?
D
Posted by: Don | May 9, 2008 11:04 AM
"Yes, kevin s, it is awful when we can't conveniently maintain control by being able to label everyone precisely. "
It isn't about good or bad, but simply saying what you mean. Confusion, though, is bad, and it is good to know what one means.
"Kevin S. seems to believe that because Tony Campolo calls himself a "red letter" Christian, he therefore must think that the words of Christ in the gospels carries more weight than the words of Paul."
I thought that he literally said so in one of the comments sections back in October. Perhaps I am remembering wrong.
It is a liberal position to belief that there is a need to prioritize either. The conservative position is that we should understand them both to be true, and therefore reconcile the passages.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 9, 2008 4:26 PM
Don,
I just responded by email. Had forgotten to check my yahoo email inbox for several days--thanks for reminder.
Posted by: carl copas | May 9, 2008 4:32 PM
Kevin, I didn't know I was making a conservative-liberal distinction, so I wonder why some of us seem to have a need to see it that way. For my part, I don't think there's any conflict between the words of Jesus and the writings of Paul, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand each one's teachings in light of the other's. You are the one using the word "prioritize"; I didn't use it.
After all, how did Paul understand following Jesus?
Peace,
Posted by: Don | May 9, 2008 8:21 PM
Very good article, and interesting posts. I believe Phyllis Tickle is correct in what she is observing and discerning within the Body of Christ. There has been a grass roots movement developing across the denomination spectrum that has been increasingly appreciating the truth in each of our brothers and sisters, bringing unity rather than division.
Some people have sounded concerned because this movement can't be pigeon-holed and neatly labeled. At least one person was "appalled" that Berger used the names, the "labels", of different denominations and traditions as she discussed how the "Great Emergence" was recognizing and celebrating God's truths within them all, rather than searching intently for differences. The quoted paragraph deserves to be read again, but this time, include the following paragraph. They go hand in hand.
"We are evangelical in our roots and ecumenical in our expression—drawing on the best of Christian practices that are held denominationally. For example, when we are operating at our best, we try to take scripture as seriously as Protestants, understand communion as deeply as Catholics, rely on the Spirit as passionately as Pentecostals, preach a prophetic word of good news as zealously as evangelicals, and live a contemplative life rooted in the ever-present Imago Dei as humbly as Orthodox."
"As a cluster of Christians, we strive to practice "open-source" spiritual leadership, or "priesthood of all believers," or authority rooted in gifts of the Spirit. Additionally, we understand following Jesus as a "way of life"—the Tao of Jesus, the Jesus Road. This "way of life" leads us also to take the doctrinal teachings of the church very seriously -- because we've lived them, not (necessarily) because we signed a contractual arrangement or took a loyalty oath with the church."
That last sentence sums up a big attraction for some of us. Orthodoxy is important, especially when it is generous, but the call to good orthopraxy speaks to me of what Jesus has called us to do.
Posted by: janible | May 10, 2008 12:41 AM
"Kevin, I didn't know I was making a conservative-liberal distinction, so I wonder why some of us seem to have a need to see it that way."
I don't "need" to see it any particular way. I'm just commenting on a general trend.
"You are the one using the word "prioritize"; I didn't use it."
Right. I wasn't using it to describe your position.
"Some people have sounded concerned because this movement can't be pigeon-holed and neatly labeled."
This isn't accurate. What I said was that the emphasis on eschewing labels makes it very difficult to ascertain what the emergent movement is, and how it is separate from the emerging movement.
"Orthodoxy is important, especially when it is generous, but the call to good orthopraxy speaks to me of what Jesus has called us to do."
Jesus calls us to both. The problem is that what Brian McLaren calls a generous orthodoxy is often not orthodoxy at all, or at least a reasonable case can be made that this is so. Instead of contending with these crticisms, emergents accuse their critics of trying to pigeon-hole them.
That isn't healthy. It is reasonable to offer critique of a Christian movement, and for that movement to respond to the critique in an intellectually honest way.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 10, 2008 11:34 AM
I understand your concerns, Kevin, and completely agree that Jesus calls us to both orthodoxy and orthopraxy. It is interesting, though, that most of His criticism seemed to be directed at people who had perfected their form of orthodoxy, but had lost sight of living what they preached.
As far as pigeon-holing people, it sounds like I misunderstood you, and completely agree that using that phrase shouldn't be used as a way to close down discussion. Perhaps, though, the problem is that one aspect of the "emerging" Christianity seems to be a consensus to move beyond looking for differences of dogmas/doctrines, and instead agree that we can worship in unity, above and beyond a specific list of doctrines or perceived categories.
Someone said that instead of using terms like "emerging", why don't people simply became members of older traditions, such as the Coptics. This would work if someone agreed with every doctrine/dogma/practice of that particular branch. On the other hand, some are drawn to certain practices and beliefs of several different traditions. The emerging concept allows them to incorporate diverse parts into their own personal spiritual journey.
I do think it is important for all of us to be able to explain and affirm what we believe to be true. It shouldn't be a matter of "anything goes". But instead of saying we can't worship with others unless they are in total agreement with every one of the points on our official and unofficial doctrinal statements, we keep discussion open, and pray that the Holy Spirit will clarify things for each one of us. And you are absolutely right that eschewing labels makes this whole process much more difficult, because it does indeed require much more prayer and discernment on the part of each individual.
Your point about the eventual outcome of the "emergent" movement, as opposed to the "emerging" movement, may very well prove to be true. Time will tell, but regardless of what we call it, I suspect that what is stirring in many people, from many different traditions and denominations, is going to continue to transform people, and how they respond to each other.
I have attended a two day seminar with Greg Boyd and have read four of his books. I have read three of Tony Campolo's books, including the excellent one he co-authored with Mary Albert Darling. (I'll have to go back to find the articles he has written here, though.) I've also read three of Brian McLaren's books. As an evangelical charismatic who totally agrees with the Apostles Creed, there are some things I would disagree with at times, but I would feel completely comfortable to join with them in worship and communion with our Lord. And for me, I guess that sums up the "emerging" church - a body of believers, followers of the way of Jesus Christ, who are more focussed on their journey with Him than they are with whether their comrades agree with exact definitions, forms of baptism, dance or don't dance, elect or free will or somewhere inbetween, and on, and on.
Posted by: Janible | May 11, 2008 12:10 AM
Interesting this "conflict" between Jesus and Paul. I have the feeling if you were to ask Paul whose words should hold more weight, he would say Jesus'. I'm not saying Paul's words are not important, but rather that they should be seen in the light of Jesus' words. And I doubt Paul would disagree with that interpretation.
Posted by: squeaky | May 11, 2008 12:53 PM
"Interesting this "conflict" between Jesus and Paul. I have the feeling if you were to ask Paul whose words should hold more weight, he would say Jesus'."
I don't think he would accept the premise of the question, which is that he was wrong about something that Jesus was right about.
"And for me, I guess that sums up the "emerging" church - a body of believers, followers of the way of Jesus Christ, who are more focussed on their journey with Him than they are with whether their comrades agree with exact definitions, forms of baptism, dance or don't dance, elect or free will or somewhere inbetween, and on, and on.
"
But what if the "and on, and on" is whether there is a heaven or hell? What if it is the question of how one can be saved? What if it is the question of whether a pastor may continue to lead a church having divorced his wife?
Eventually, essential doctrines of the Christian faith get tossed under the tires of the Don't Sweat the Small Stuff Express.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 11, 2008 9:20 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?