P. Tickle blog
“…it will rewrite Christian theology … into something far more Jewish, more paradoxical, more narrative, and more mystical than anything the Church has had for the last seventeen or eighteen hundred years.” (162) I must admit that some parts of the text The Great Emergence has been hard to swallow. As I work with leadership at Souderton Mennonite Church and include references to Tickle’s work, I am beginning to take little bites and many small swallows.
The first small swallow I took down was the analogy of the cord. I can easily see SMC in this analogy. Our traditional shared history is now open (the outer waterproof covering). Even our leadership board is five to two; five raised Mennonite and two not. Our congregation is even more varied. Traditional teachings are not known in a growing percentage of the congregation (example: peace theology). The desire of leadership is to find ways to center on a core or root of our congregational faith (topic at the board and pastor retreat 2-29-09). This is evidence that the cover is open and we are struggling to find ways to fix it.
The cord analogy goes next to the mesh sleeve or common imagination of our time. SMC is again divided and unsure how this one will be decided. Some are still bent on conservative versus liberal and some are thinking spiritual versus rational (realist versus idealist). In other words, our congregation and our leadership teams have not agreed on how the world works and then how we respond.
The inner part of the cord is the threefold cord: spirituality, corporeality, and morality. In this I can see some decisions and direction to aid the work on the above mentioned two parts (Tickle makes a similar argument for the US Church). Spirituality is defined as experiential and to some degree emotional. Church programs/ministries are focused on this and the main gathering time or worship Sunday mornings is also weighted toward experiential sharing with emotional proof. A typical Sunday service include someone’s personal sharing related to a ministry or life event which adds application to the sermon topic. I see this as SMC’s answer to the spirituality quest – it is seen as experiential. Second is corporeality as in the embodied evidence that religion exists. SMC is ready to tear apart the Bible so that the “inconsistencies” can be made right. They seem to have gathered behind the Christocentric methodology of applying scripture. With this lens, they accept that potential human exaggeration and outright sexism/racism/nationalism of the biblical writers can be found by “weighing” these accounts to the standard/truth of Christ. This allows SMC to keep scripture as embodied evidence even some passages are evidence of human fallacy and others are God’s divine leadership. The final part of the cord is morality. I am certain that leadership and the congregation have not come up with a unified or even majority answer to this one. A working description would be, “don’t do stupid” (Martin Weins – VP at Dock). I am not sure if there is a “sin” that is too bad for acceptance but I do have conversations with some members about some other members sin in terms of discomfort (not good gossip but maybe not stupid).
The work at the above mentioned retreat was centered on what is SMC’s foundation or truth that all else grows out of. I mentioned a willow tree image. Our roots are in our Anabaptist story and the revelation of God seen in Christ Jesus. Our branches grow up and out and then bend down and touch areas all around our church; the streets and homes in Souderton. As we grow and nourish the tree, we can reach even further out with potential to transplant and start new trees. After reading Tickle I also see a comparison in the definition she is working with for current “emergent” churches. SMC lines up with her working definition. We mentioned at the meeting that we want to lead in a way that allows for belonging before believing. Tickle sees this as part of the working definition of emergent churches. To further the case for SMC’s emergent status, we also are more centrist in our links to the four quadrants in Tickle’s work. We also love to talk over the pulpit about the tensions or paradox in our lives: individualism with community, present kingdom with the future fullness of the kingdom, corporate with private faith, inward journey with the outer journey.
The parts of Tickle’s work that I am not able to swallow yet relates to her work with truth. I cannot comprehend that truth is a construct of society and religious perception. Truth is made by human design and the pattern of this design re-enforces the human creation of it. That is one big bit for a former farm boy from Amish country. I am not sure where Tickle comes out in her own faith journey but what is God’s role in this transition? Is there an ultimate answer to truth or is Tickle another post-modernite who finds no ultimate truth outside of human psychological construct? What is the role of the church to refocus this pluralistic culture on God? How much can we change/emerge without losing God as our foundation? As I keep working on this big bit maybe, with the help of my community, I can start taking smaller bits of this one also
Kirby
Good application in the SMC context. And good questions. I don’t think Tickle would deny Truth but I do think she’s striving toward a different relationship with it. I do though wonder how God or the Spirit fit in with this process of historical cycling.