Not so Tickled about Phyllis

Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring forth. –Prov 27:1

Reading a bit of Phyllis Tickle's “The Great Emergence,” (and I haven’t read it all, so I have limited ability to comment) I have come to respect it as an analysis of cultural influences on the modern western church, but I find it too limiting to support its thesis that we are in another great movement. After years of trying to figure out what post-modernisms really is, I’m beginning to conclude that it is more the end of modernism than the beginning of anything new – we are still looking for that meta-narrative as we deconstruct the meta-narratives of others. Phyllis Tickle is solidly Modern in presenting her meta-narrative (meta-history) that hinge-points in history occur every 500 years and we are in another such emergence today. She focuses on exclusively on Western culture (for example the hinge-point that occurred in Medina in 622 is left out) at a time when cultural changes are increasingly global. She also has selected and excluded the hinge-points in Western Christianity, seemingly to align as closely as possible to 500 yr cycles than for their cultural importance to the church (for example the Edict of Milan – a hinge-point of immense impact – is not mentioned probably because 313 is not close enough to 500). It just doesn’t fit together as nicely as she says it does. And when it does, she appears to be justifying Modernism (we are all a part of her grand meta-history) more than looking forward to any new viewpoint.

But even with this sloppiness in logic, her message is enthralling. Who does not want to be living at the hinge-point of the next great era? To rub shoulders with the next Martin Luther or, even better, make in into the history books ourselves. Of course, I want to hear that my church is looking to the future and that our style of worship (that looks different than the main-line church down the street, so it must be different) will be vindicated as the new church. But aren’t we being a bit self-important in listening to this? Isn’t it too comfortable to just believe this story of our great place in history?

I understand Phyllis to be challenging us to cut the cords and let this great emergence happen. The old (Modern) meta-narratives found in religion are no longer valid in their traditions (we do church differently now), reason (we are more experiential now) and Scripture (we should move beyond our previous standard of sola scriptura, carefully excluding the parts that don’t fit our culture). But then she just sets up another meta-narrative one where the old religion (meta-narrative) must exit since it has been around for 500 years and where the emerging church contains the next great hinge-point. She is just asking me to exchange one set of cords for another – one meta-narrative for another. Her argument is not that the new cords are better but rather they are new and it is time for a change. But shouldn’t our challenge be to find the right cords and connections to God?

I guess I just don’t feel challenged by what Phyllis Tickle has to say. I may have some urge to complain that her thesis could use more support but she has tied some useful themes together. However she hasn’t challenged me to live differently or to seek God in new ways. She has presented another meta-narrative, another Modern reading of religion, to help us feel comfortable where we are, but one that just throws us out into the open with no direction – just keep doing what you are doing because it brings the change for the next 500 years. It’s an attractive message, even persuasive, but it is not inspiring. 

Thanks to Paul Roberts for his thoughts on this topic.