Another Look: Phyllis Tickle's "The Great Emergence"

By Nic Paton, re-posted from Emerging Africa:
Where is this thing going, even as it is carrying all of us along with it in its mad careen?
In a movement regularly criticised as consisting of online, anti-establishment, young, white males, Phyllis Tickle’s voice is a relief. White of hair and skin she may be, but on most other counts she scratches parts that others cannot, breaking apart age, gender and denominational categories. When she spoke to Tony Jones on a podcast in July 2007 two things stood out for me. Firstly, her unabashed, unequivocal support of the Emergent and Emerging conversation, and the fact that her ambition when she grew up was to “be a crone”.
Tickle, now in her 70’s, is well qualified to comment. The author of numerous works (including plays), she was also the founding Religion editor for Publisher’s Weekly, close to the heartbeat of social, philosophical and theological trends at the fin de siècle in the United States. Widely acknowledged as an expert in Church history, she is well placed to see large patterns at play, and to sooth our angst, “you are not alone in the turbulence you are experiencing; it has happened before, again and again”. In addition to an Elders wisdom, she offers incisive analysis from a feminine point of view. As a crone in the making, she is bold enough to offer a prophetic vision not just to our age, but for generations to come. For some, Armageddon and Rapture are just around the corner, and prognostications about a New Christianity in Time and Space are the last things to worry about, but Tickle keeps her feet firmly on the ground, and reaches unashamedly for the stars.
Tickles central quest can be stated succinctly, and it is this: “Where, now, is our authority?” Like Francis Schaeffer’s question “How then shall we live?” (posed in the 1970’s), she shares a perspective widely informed by broader cultural trends. Unlike Schaeffer, who wrote from deep within a modernist, conservative evangelical paradigm, but nonetheless provided a solid Christian witness against the onslaught of what he termed the “Line of Despair” — existentialism, nihilism, and relativism being his watchwords — Tickle brings to us the fruits of an optimistic, post modern “return” to biblical faith.
For her, the problem of authority hinges around the current protestant orthodoxy of “sola scriptura, scriptura sola.” While Luther played a pivotal role in steering the Church onwards 500 years ago with his emphasis on the priesthood of all believers, and the sole authority of scripture, Tickle sees the end for sola as commonly understood.
The erosion of the authority of sola scriptura will have been in 4 stages: the end of slavery as a biblically justified practice, the acknowledgement of the reality of divorce and that those who suffer it might find total restitution in the eyes of God, the ascendancy of woman to ministry, and finally (and as yet incomplete), an acceptance of homosexuals into the Church. Added to this she includes the Pentecostal and Charismatic renewals (the Vineyard movement getting special mention) in which the Holy Spirit played an increased role in questions of Authority.
Unlike most voices who see only the demise of a Christianity without the “authority of scripture”, Tickle offers a new direction. But rather than some simplistic alternative, her proposal is robustly built up, step by step, and illustrated in a series of developing graphics. She starts with a “quadrilateral”: a square of 4 parts, each representing a major sector of the North American Church: Conservatives, Renewalists, Social Justice and Liturgical. She shows via a “cruciform” how these are beginning to coalesce into what she calls the “gathering centre”. What emerges is an iconic “rose” motif representing a qualitatively new type of Christianity.
The culminating thought is the introduction of a new word (new to me at any rate) — Orthonomy. Ortho we shall identify as meaning “correct” or “right”, but nomos is more difficult.
I’ll leave this one for the author’s own words:
- ”... it means to name the principles or resonances that create the harmony of sounds in poetry or music and the order in things in creation … to name the law and its perfection as the expression of the governance of God. In sum, nomos is, most nearly, the ineffable beauty in that which is divine, especially as it becomes incarnate in space and time.
“Orthonomy may be defined then as a kind of ‘correct harmoniousness’ or beauty. In effect, when it is used here, it means the employment of aesthetic or harmonic purity as a tool — and therefore the intent or authority — of anything, be that thing either doctrine or practice.” [149]
“Where, now, is our authority?” Tickle suggests that it arises out of community, conversation, and a new way of knowing, from the compost provided by every sector and tradition of the church, but that is will be based on an epistemology substantially different from modernistic ways of knowing. She has managed to put into words something I have only suspected: the ultimate authority of Jesus’ parables, for example, lie in their boundless meaningfulness and their inherent poetry. Many, if not most of us, who hold scripture in high regard, might find the assertion that orthonomy supercedes orthodoxy just one step too far, but I sigh with relief to have my deepest intuitions thus validated.
As original and erudite as it is, The Great Emergence is not without its problems. Briefly, its admittedly North American emphasis does make it hard to accept the thesis wholesale for anyone from the rest of the world. I always balk at American ignorance, arrogance, and parochialism, so my hot buttons are easy to find. I am in no way accusing her of these things, far from it, but I’ll be happy to put this bias down to her publishers DNA and demographic awareness more than any suspect intent.
While for the most part I was spellbound by her originality and alacrity, there were times when her waxings began to wane. One such instance is her “cable” analogy of truth which lost me, sinking somewhat under its own weight. And lastly, I think just a touch of hard sociological data might have been in order, to support her claims that for instance, one quarter of Emergents are Catholic (but perhaps that is someone elses job).
Like Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy, The Great Emergence is a deeply ecumenical work, gifting the church with new and exciting tools for engagement with a new era. She considers the roots of this emergence, presenting the Reformation as a prequel to emergence, and then showing how in the last century Marx and Darwin, Einstein and Heisenberg, Freud, Jung, and Campbell have played pivotal roles in the redefinition of our world. I’d suggest that this “worldly” awareness be taken further by the reader, and although flawed, James Herrick’s The Making of the New Spirituality: The Eclipse of the Western Religious Tradition, a catalog of the influences eroding what he (too pejoratively) calls the “Revealed Word” tradition, provides a good counterpoint.
As in all things, history will tell whether The Great Emergence was in fact a once-in-500-year event, a vain hope, or plain hype. But it is deeply reassuring to have a qualified elder observe, hold, and validate a nascent movement. In The Great Emergence, Phyllis Tickle has combined the energy of the maiden and the wisdom of the crone, together with the nurturing intent of the mother, in her proud, celebratory closing litany: “The cub has grown into the young lion; and now is the hour of his roaring.”
Nic Paton—Postmodern Liturgist, multi-instrumentalist, VJ, and scullery theologian—lives in Cape Town, South Africa, and contributes to Emerging Africa.
Bookmark this article using Remarkable!
Welcome to the Reader's Forum
I am at a loss as to why new ortho-s need to be introduced.
This seems to arise out of a misconception of Orthodoxy that first reduces it merely to “right belief” and then opposes it with orthopraxy or “right practice.” This reduction and opposition is a distinctly modern phenomenon. On the one hand it conceives of belief as a primarily intellectual endeavor, while also thinking of practice in terms of the rational religion that Kant articulates and which liberal Christianity has accepted as the standard of authentic Christianity.
But why make such a reduction at all? And, what is more, why believe that the solution to this problem is to find a new way of being right, a new ortho-, rather than reclaiming the ancient fullness of Orthodoxy? Orthodoxy never meant merely “right belief” but rather “right worship” (something which implies both right belief and right practice). What sort of new ortho-criterion can surplant the fullness of “right worship”?
Surely not orthonomy (which is an improvement on Enlightenment autonomy, I’ll grant that). If orthonomy has to do with the beauty, orderliness, and law of creation (as well as the law of morality which reflects this order?) it should not supplant Orthodoxy but rather serve as the prelude to it. Orthonomy does not go far enough. It takes one to the door of wonder without advocating the further step of right worship to the God who created the laws of nature and the laws of morality. If orthonomy does in fact designate this worship, then why insist on this new word at all? Reclaiming the ancient fullness of the meaning of Orthodoxy is enough. To add this new word serves as a diversion and a distraction.
This may have been the most helpful review of this book I have read, Nic. Thanks. Very well written!
Hi Jonathan
Well, for me the cable analogy just did not have the meaning or integrity as an image that her rose did, for example. From the out, I didn’t GET that chapter. I did not grasp how the cords of the cable were related, or what the leakage stood for. I put it down to a hermeneutic and cultural difference, or maybe just semantics.
I tend to weigh metaphor and analogy by the power of their image – does it come from everyday life, and does it resonate with my experience? This is BTW also a good way to critique advertising. Some commercials really make their point at a deep level and others are inane, confused or contrived.
Did you understand her cable? What I mean is, orthonomically (tee hee) did the image make sense to you, especially as an Amercian? If so, I think you should probably explain it to me …
Thanks, Alex!
Todd
Your groans are heard. It may be that we don’t need another “ortho”, or that in appraising the nomos, it is inappropriate.
In context however, thinking of the moderns with their questions of authority, it might provide a good bridge over into a different
ethos, which is essentially from Law to Grace. The way I read nomos, it is a quality for which there is no law, and therefore, no correctness.
I like your bringing us back to worship. For most orthodoxy means right belief, but I think it has multiple meanings. I agree that its primary one should be to do with glory rather than doctrine. I think Tickle uses it in a narrow sense, as to do with intellectual propositions, and I believe her introducing orthonomy is attempting to do what you are as well.
Todd, be gentle with us. Many of us need new bridging words, so we can get back on the path we have drifted from. To go from sola scriptura type orthodoxy straight into Liturgical orthodoxy might be too much for those who need to reject “orthodoxy” to re-discover the timeless truth – it may undermine the fidelity of necessary betrayal.
Nic,
Two remarks on your critiques:
1. I’m pretty sure Tickle was both self-aware and explicit about her analysis applying to the dominant Western tradition and did not mean for it to be applied to all forms, everywhere—EXCEPT in her discussions on Pentecostalism, which she weaves into post-colonial Christianity quite well, I thought.
Secondly, on the cable analogy. I found it fascinating and extremely vivid, but I am a scholar of memory studies so perhaps I have a particular itch that she scratched. To understand it more, perhaps you could see it not as a “truth” cable but as a cable of memory. Memory, in this case, would be the way in which societies or groups understand themselves in relation to their past, with their past serving as a primary form of legitimation for their present actions and organization. So it is a “truth” cable but in the sense of “authority” or “tradition” rather than truth in any modern sense, and despite whether a religious tradition sees themselves as authority/tradition averse or not (they all practice it).
When the memory cable gets seriously damaged—in Tickle’s analysis, about every 500 years—it becomes obvious to enough of the group that the cable is not as “invincible” or, more descriptively, cannot provide the previous “taken-for-grantedness” (legitimation) of the present order as it had done in the past. So a conscious (this part is key) repair is undertaken by these folks—and denied by others, within the same tradition—and the repair is completed when a new form of legitimation (i.e.: a new source of authority) is identified.
As you can see, she may not have given you quantitative sociological data, but that whole chapter was an exercise in sociological theory and quasi-qualitative analysis.
Nic: You are the image of a gentleman. Cheers to you, and please forgive my impatience. Without Emergent I would not have discovered liturgical orthodoxy, because I would not have engaged in the process of recovering and investigating the past.
But I do hope that we can regain the ancient words, concepts, practices, and life of faith and worship that has substance and power rather than diminished one’s which are only rich because we are exiting the religious wasteland of modernity.
It is also strange to me that it would be an Anglican who is troubled by the ancient sense of orthodoxy as right worship, when a standardized common worship is precisely what Anglicans decided to uphold as essential to the Anglican Christian identity with the Book of Common Prayer. What is more, how can the legitimacy of authority be honestly troubling for someone who believes in the Ecclesial role of Bishops and in the concept of Apostolic succession?
Thank you for the great review of Tickle’s book. And I am sorry if I am levelling questions about her ideas at you.
Matt
Thanks for stepping in to the gap. Any conversation worth anything needs multiple points of view.
I’m a big fan of the definition of religion as a “binding back”, a re-membering, re-assembling fragments into a new view of the whole.
Nic, I found the cable very helpful because the strands were content and the cable was trust. The tear was some event that tore open the sheathing to expose those basic cables (beliefs) and allowed people to examine them. But the real issue was the trust issue. People live their lives tethered to ideas. And as we deconstruct those ideas, as they are exposed, we find that trust needs to be reestablished.
Add Emergent Village to
Join our mailing list:



Nic, nice post. Can you unpack your statement a little and help me understand it better.
You said, “One such instance is her “cable” analogy of truth which lost me, sinking somewhat under its own weight.”
What do you mean by that?