Just What Exactly is Emerging?

For those who have already read or are in the process of reading Phyllis Tickle's excellent book, The Great Emergence: How Christianity is Changing and Why...

I'm sitting in Starbucks reading. I'm not finished the book yet--I happen to be on page 104 at the moment. This book is fantastic and very educational. That being said, I've got some questions. For example, I've just stopped and scribbled this down in my journal, and want to open it up for input:

"Is The Great Emergence solely examining changes in the religion of Christianity (given my 'irreligious' stance) and neglecting the evolving/refining question of what does it really mean to follow Jesus?

In other words, is the question focused too much on the social, and not enough on the spiritual?

Anyone have any thoughts? (I'm really looking forward to hearing from Phyllis in March!)

Comments

[Angela Harms]

Yes. That's my short answer, anyway. I love missional, but without spiritual, it's empty (to me). I want to get more from Christianity than I get from Zen, not less.

[Jesse]

I can understand your question, because there was a point when I asked a similar question as I was reading, especially when Tickle was describing the boat and the rope which tethers the boat to the dock. I remember thinking, "Doesn't it matter what the boat is tied to?" And Tickle never addresses that -

However, in some respects, after finishing the book, I think one of the biggest things I learned is that religion is social - the spiritual is necessarily wrapped in the physical. There is no a-physical following of Jesus, no Christianity in a vacuum. "Religion" is what spirituality looks like in society.

And so while The Great Emergence might seem to lack a certain sense of spirituality or not really address what it means to follow Jesus in a personal relationship type of way, I think it does a great job explaining the broader, over-arching experience of how being a Christian is drastically changing in the 21st cent.

[jason smith]

I guess I would just agree - we like to think we are a-religious, but that makes us religious.

Oracle: I’d ask you to sit down, but, you’re not going to anyway. And don’t worry about the vase.
Neo: What vase?
[Neo turns to look for a vase, and as he does, he knocks over a vase of flowers, which shatters on the floor]
Oracle: That vase.
Neo: I’m sorry…
Oracle: I said don’t worry about it. I’ll get one of my kids to fix it.
Neo: How did you know?
Oracle: Ohh, what’s really going to bake your noodle later on is, would you still have broken it if I hadn’t said anything?

In a way, maybe Tickle gets something we don't.

BTW, they still have Starbucks in Canada?

[Theresa Seeber]

I think that it is okay for a book to talk about practice and not about spirituality, since a good book needs a focus. But that is not to say that Phyllis, nor the movement at large, is missing the spiritual. I think we all need to focus on the reality of the Spirit of God. Maybe it is time for one of us to write a book about the spiritual side, but not as a critic - rather as a participator.

[Theresa Seeber]

Here is a link to something related, that I think is a great tie-in.

[Mike]

Thanks for the great comments. (Jason - You know I'm a sucker for Matrix quotes...)

Maybe I should clarify my casual 'irreligious' reference for the uninitiated.

My thinking on the subject has been greatly influenced by the writing of my friend Bruxy Cavey. In a nutshell, I use 'religion' in its negative context, that is, I define it as a system of rules, rituals or regulations one uses to get right with God. In that sense, I believe Jesus came to put an end to religion and to teach us how to live. (In response we've made a religion out of him, and we have rendered his teaching 'optional', but I digress.)

Please don't get me wrong - the book is fascinating. From where I'm standing sitting though (currently I'm on p. 119) I'm not sure if this is going to help me in my quest to follow Jesus. Ironically, it may be useful in helping us figure out where the religion of Christianity went off the rails, but I'm not sure that is its intention.

Again, I love the book. I'm just trying to position it correctly in my own mind. (Part of my issue with words like missional, emergence, emerging church, etc., is my view that they are simply more culturally relevant distractions.)

BTW, over at Missional Tribes they're discussing the book as well.

[Michelle]

I agree with your latest comment -- that all these missional, emerging church ideas are nothing more than a culturally relevant distraction. If people want to know Jesus, they ought to crack open their Bibles and see for themselves. They ought to receive the salvation that He died to give them and come to know Him on a personal level. The way people today are making out Jesus to be nothing more than a Jewish Ghandi... someone who challenged thinking and went against what was culturally and religiously accepted is ridiculous. Jesus was not a community organizer. He was our Savior and Redeemer. If people are missing that, they're missing EVERYTHING. Jesus didn't come to give us nice ideas or even to teach us HOW to live. He came to save our souls so we COULD live.

Thanks for listening :o)
Michelle
http://handsfrozentothesword.com

[Mike]

Just so I'm positioning myself clearly here, Michelle, I think you could safely identify me with those "missional, emerging church ideas." My issue is with all the debating going on regarding the definitions of those words. I also think Jesus was all the things you say he wasn't, on top of being God in human form. And just to round it off, I do think he came to teach us how to live.

Thanks for prompting me to clarify... I want to be clear on what I'm saying.

[Michelle]

I didn't say that Jesus wasn't a "cool guy" or a "good teacher". But I think living a lifestyle that only values Him at those levels would be tragic. Jesus' purpose was NOT to be either of those things -- that doesn't mean He wasn't, but that's not why He came. Hopefully, we can at least agree on that.