I had said on Monday that I was going to delve into Peter Rollins’ book today, but I wanted to come back for one more look at the Great Emergence first.
In the last couple of chapters Phyllis Tickle looks at the different roles that we see Christians in North America adapting during this time of transformation. She has a really helpful quadrant/rose diagram that looks at the different segments of the church. I couldn’t find an exact representation online, but this is close enough.
The four quadrants show different the different major manifestations of the North American Church and what is happening in the middle is what is being described as the Great Emergence. The corners in each quadrant are to represent those who are pulling back from the center to preserve the tradition that they are a part of. Tickle talks about different roles that Christians are taking on. There are those who are reactionaries, traditionalists, re-traditionings, progressives, and hyphenateds (this one is a bit of a tongue in cheek label with many groups calling themselves Presby-mergents, Bapti-mergents, Metho -mergents and so forth) all existing within the sphere of the church and within each quadrant.
Looking at the roles of each group and how they are handling the shift in our culture was helped by thinking about the church as a historic house.
The reactionaries are doing everything to preserve the house as it is right now, in order to protect what they hold most dear.
The traditionalists are doing the same, but making minor upgrades to help it survive.
The re-traditionings are getting the house an updating, new wiring, repainting, refinishing the original woodwork, to modernize and remphasize the original beauty of the house.
The progressives are keeping the exterior of the house and some of the original construction but they aren’t afraid of gutting it to really give it a modern look with all new fixtures, appliances, and decorations. They aren’t afraid of taking off a deck that no longer works or getting new windows for the house.
The hyphenateds want to preserve the history and memory of such a special place, but aren’t afraid to tear down the structure and rebuild if necessary. They want to keep the land that has housed so many of their relatives, and even to recycle and reuse original materials, but what they build will be visibly different from what their grandparents who passed it down to them built.
This analogy is helpful, limited obviously, but a good working place to consider our role in the future of the church. How much remodeling of the church are we comfortable with? How will this effect our ecclessiology and missiology? Can we tear down and rebuild the church without compromising the Gospel?
If I were to find a place in these labels I would probably be somewhere between a progressive and a hyphenated. I believe the institution of the church and our understanding of how to live as the church needs major reconstruction and updating and in some instances some serious demolition. Where would you put yourself? Are these categories helpful at all even though they are limited and few of us like labeling ourselves?
February 2, 2009 at 9:51 am
I am hopeful too that larger global influence on the church will give us humility.
On the retreat I attended a couple of weeks ago the phrase that I kept hearing was the pursuit of joy that comes only from extravagant humility and purity. Those are two powerful goals for all of us to seek.
February 3, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Monte, I think 1 Corinthians might hold a lot of wisdom for this conversation. This week I have looked at 1 Corinthians 9:16-23 which speaks of being all things to all people. As I have struggled to understand this passage, it seems that Paul is saying the same things the Emurging folks are: There is a core to the gospel around which other beliefs/practices orbit(Imagine electrons swirling around nucleus). In an ever-changing, multi-faceted cultural climate, the Church must find a way to proclaim that core to the various swirling electrons without getting in the way of the core.