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?
January 29, 2009 at 9:38 am
What exactly is discarded with each of these approaches? I would think the reason for taking any of these approaches must be based on where the problem lies.
If the problems in the Church are at the foundations (fundamental failure to ‘be’ the body of Christ), tear it down, blow it us, start over.
If the problem is with the support structure, plumbing, and interconnected wirings (failure for denominations to connect with one another, failure of heirarchical systems within denominations to order the Church and guide it well, failure of seminary and clery to equip people for works of service), we can do some gutting without turning the whole thing over.
And if the problem is merely with the carpet and paint choices (evangelistic efforts, hospitality, focus and purpose of mission), the work could happen with little extreme work.
I like that the Emurging Church on the diagram is a circle and not a dot because it allows people from all quadrants to be a part of transformation as long as they do want transformation, while doing so at different degrees according to how much their context/denomination/specific local church needs.
But, I would almost want a donut because I can’t see how the extreme center that wants to throw it all out and start over would be more beneficial than harmful to the Church.
January 29, 2009 at 9:46 am
Shay,
Thanks for taking time to respond.
I agree that our efforts at transforming the church will be based on where we think the church is disconnecting from the gospel and from culture in a way as to make it ineffective in the missio dei.
Tickle’s diagram is more helpful than the one I put up there, but it gets the idea across. I too love the fact that what is happening is a conversation between different quadrants of the church that is working to effect vastly different parts of the church in different ways. There is no one size fits all aspect to what it taking place. It isn’t a trend or a program. It is a transformation.
January 29, 2009 at 9:51 am
Reflecting on the role I feel I am called to in the church I am increasingly feeling like the restoration of the Church of the Nazarene will end up with a church that is drastically different than the historical entity that has existed the past 100 years.
I think the structure of our church will have to change. I think the North American dominance of our church is changing rapidly. I think our efforts at being distinctive, especially in regards to holiness, will need reexamination and refocusing. (Obviously by the name of my blog)
I say this because despite 100 years of revivals, a radical commitment to holiness, conservative theology, innerrancy, and an emphasis on entire sanctification the COTN finds itself at a crossroads with a generation that now is leaving the church, lives no differently than the rest of the culture, and has no loyalty to the denomination. The reality is that we aren’t distinctive, we are just like everyone else.
January 30, 2009 at 8:40 am
I keep wanting to jump ahead in these conversations, but I wonder what place ordinary laity has in bringing about needed change in the church. It is clear how clergy is involved, but what about everyone else? I think that answer also depennds on whether the needed change starts at the local level or at the demoninational level or in some ecumenical sphere.
You have had very few comments on any of the Tickle/Rollins posts and I wonder if these are issues most people don’t ever think about or don’t think apply to them?
January 30, 2009 at 10:41 am
Great post – glad to find you! I’m a Nazarene pastor in Iowa.
To Shay’s first comment: I’m not sure anything is “wrong,” objectively. But the world around us has lurched into a different epistemology (to use one example), and proving things in ways that we’ve always found satisfying no longer makes sense to people we know.
I wonder if a greater challenge to the COTN will come in the area of identity. We have seen ourselves in the last 60 years as existing for the purpose of retaining a doctrine, entire sanctification. But some of us are realizing afresh that systematic theology is not timeless; indeed, I suspect it’s a creation of Enlightenment reductionism.
As we struggle to locate systematic theology’s role in a post-modern world, we’re asking questions that are mighty close to the reason for being of the COTN. Talking about it won’t be for the faint of heart!
January 30, 2009 at 10:45 am
Greg – I’m finding this post – and even simply its presence – a great encouragement. It makes me feel less alone. Thank you very much!
January 30, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Monte,
It is great to have you join our conversation. There are plenty of us in the COTN asking these questions. It is good that we can connect and ask them together.
I think that you are right about our desire to uphold a systematic theology in a time when systems are becoming less certain. I think we have tried to make our theology too neat and ordered. God always seems to do things far messier than we give him credit for.
January 30, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Shay,
Sorry I forgot to respond to your comment as well. I think that we will increasingly see a smaller division between clergy and laity in the coming days. I think some of the lack of conversation about this topic is that for most people they are simply going through a change in the world and don’t even know how to express what is going on.
But, the more we talk about the changes we are experiencing the more people will be willing to engage in those conversations.
January 31, 2009 at 7:18 am
Going back to something you said earlier, Greg, about North American dominance. It will be very interesting to see how the Church naturally shifts and changes as globalization affects the church more and as the Church makes efforts to hear the voices in other parts of the world. We, in America, will need a lot of humility and a lot of cultural education.
January 31, 2009 at 7:12 pm
“in a time when systems are becoming less certain” – good phrase. I’m working this week on 1 Cor 8, which includes these phrases (in The Message):
“Sometimes our humble hearts can help us more than our proud minds.” Now there’s a daring sentence! And a radically Christian one, I think.