The Great Emergence Day 1

Posted by Jonathan Brink
December 5, 2008

Today was day one in The Great Emergence conference.  To a large extent it was a deeper summary of each part of the book, including some of the keys dates, pivotal moments and events that helped create what we’re experiencing now. She made a significant point about how this turn is deeply affecting the concept of Sola Scriptura.

One of the things that caught my attention was Tickle’s comment that there are forty-four specific events that underline the move away from Sola Scriptura.  I would love to see what those 44 are but that would be like icing on the cake.  The final subject in the turn away will be how we address homosexuality in the church.  She reiterated that it’s not if Sola Scriptura ends but when.

I’ve heard Tickle talk about the faulty logic of Luther’s choice for Sola Scriptura and the inevitable consequences of it but she mentioned something today that really caught everyone’s attention.  She went extensively into the concept of division and how Sola Scriptura is naturally bent towards division, which is eventually a recipe for chaos and unending conflict.  She mentioned the 26,000 Protestant denominations on record.  The choice for Sola Scriptura had a positive consequence in that it did foster literacy in order for people to read Scripture on their own, but it also took away a central authority in the Pope which allowed everyone to have an opinion. Outcome: Instant division.

The lingering questions I have are two specific issues which Tickle intimated she will address tomorrow.  One, is it possible that the Internet will drastically speed up the potential for change thus driving it faster and more often; meaning, it is likely that we could see every typical stage of these shifts condense into 50 years as opposed to 500?  Two, is it possible that the outcome of The Great Emergence will be the opposite of the previous shifts and drift/slide towards convergence as opposed to a split? I say this because the central drawing of Tickle’s book is the flower which everyone I talked to today (regardless of background) found themselves drifting towards the center.

A couple of other really great things.

Nadia Bolz-Weber, author of Salvation on the Small Screen? 24 Hours of Christian Television, got to open each session with sections of her book.  If it’s half as good as her dead pan delivery you need to buy this book (or book her for a comedy routine).  She also blogs at Sarcastic Lutheran.

But something happened that really caught my attention.  The central point of Tickle’s book is, “Where is our authority?” And much of the underlining question for those in this conference is the step and subsequent journey out of traditional church expressions and into new ones.  Much like Luther’s choice, or anyone who chooses the lesser path and away from tradition, this move away is filled with tension.  And it hit me today that what people are looking for in the conference is the permission to take that risk. So, as Nadia was reading, at one point she said the word “shit” and you could see the heads rock back.  Yet afterward, it hit me that Nadia had found the permission to be real in what had traditionally been seen as a restrictive space.  It was weird in a good way.

One of the real blessings of the conference was when Doug brought up five attendees and asked them to share some of their own story away from traditional expressions of church.  It was interesting to hear their hearts and how they were wrestling with what they had come out of but still looking at what they were moving in to.  You could really sense that they took it very seriously and that they had not walked away from faith.

The last session of the day was the long list of authors who have written on subjects in the emerging church.  You can see the list here. They shared a brief history and background, and then we broke up into groups to engage what was humorously called, “speed dating.”  Each author spent five minutes giving a speed pitch of their subject matter, and then groups of about twelve to fifteen spend six minutes with each author peppering them with questions.

Peter Rollins absolutely captured everyone’s attention.  (He’s still looking for West Coast dates by the way.)  He talked at about six hundred words a minute and shared some of his parables and his experience at ikon.

They all really had a great message to share but two stuck with me, probably because they affected community and discipleship. Will Samson, member of Communality (Lexington, Kentucky) and co-author of Justice in the Burbs: Being the Hands of Jesus Wherever You Live really shared some great insights on slow growth in discipleship and community.  Real community can’t be manufactured. Joseph Myers, author of Organic Community: Creating a Place Where People Naturally Connect shared about the shift away from agrarian to technological community (Facebook).  We choose our friends and the barriers to non-traditional community are crumbling.  In a lot of ways he echoed Tickle’s grand question of authority that people get really tense when the normal barriers shift or disappear.

You can also see all the photos from today here.

That’s it for tonight.  Much love.

Share and Enjoy:
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Google Bookmarks
Church, Conferences, Emerging Church

If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.

  • Robyn
    Oh, my! I had so wanted to be at this event! I totally lost track of the dates. Will there be ongoing follow up events in Memphis?
  • I don't think there is going to be anything in Memphis, although Phyllis lives here, so who knows. You missed an awesome event.
  • steve
    Jonathon----just discovered your blog through the Emergence event link. Thanks so much for the DAY ONE wrap-up----man, sounds like I really missed a great day. Please tell us MORE---
  • Tracy Simmons
    Steve, I was thinking the same thing. So, I'll just echo your post with a "Hear, hear!"
  • "...people get really tense when the normal barriers shift or disappear."

    Well, that's what happens whenever people come emerging to try and divide the flock of God:

    http://apprising.org/2008/12/phyllis-tickle-it%...
  • Ken, I have to ask. Have you read The Great Emergence to really understand what she is talking about so you can make an informed response?
  • Jonathan,

    Seriously, are those who follow this Emergent rebellion against sola Scriptura as arrogant as you come across? Do you really think those of us will continue to oppose this movement as long as we're breathing can't/don't read?

    The book is sitting right here on my desk and it's hardly rocket science. She said exactly what I quoted her as saying. Trust me, as I have correctly divided the Word of Truth in discussions I have the claim I'm guilty of bibliolatry many times.

    Dude, those in the EC are not nearly as clever as they think. The only "emergence" that's coming is a deeper deception sent by God upon those who refuse to love the Truth (God's Word) and so to be saved. Try reading 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12.
  • Pastor Silva,

    Sola Scriptura was simply a battle cry of some during the Reformation. Since you also adhere to it, where in scripture does it say Solo Scriptura? Where does the bible say that it is the SOLE means for theology, doctrine and practice?
  • Again I will ask because from your comment I'm not quite sure. Did you read the book?
  • Jonathan,

    You're smart enough to understand English.

    And Jeromy,

    This: "Sola Scriptura was simply a battle cry of some during the Reformation" is simply the battlecry of most in the Emergent rebellion against the Bible.

    Where does the bible say that it isn't the SOLE means for theology, doctrine and practice?
  • Ken, I'm not kidding but your deflection makes me wonder. It's a very simple question.
  • Ken, so by asking that question, are you basing your theology, doctrine, and practice and what the Bible DOESN'T say?
  • Jonathan,

    I'm not kidding either; I know you can understand English. And you'd wonder no matter what I say or don't say.

    And the only one who's "deflecting" is you; none of this has anything to do with what I read Tickle saying the quote I use in my piece.
  • Ken, you've stated that you have the book on the table and that you've quoted her correctly. But I was just trying to clarify if you've read the book. No worries if you don't want to answer.
  • "No worries if you don't want to answer."

    Nice try; but I answered. No worries if you can't see that.
  • LOL.
  • Glad to be of good cheer.
  • Tara
    If we do not rest in the authority of scripture then we are bound to flawed thinking. I see clearly in scripture that the reformation led by Luther was Biblically sound, but I do not see any evidence that points toward the "emergence" mentality.
  • Tara, no one is saying get rid of Scripture. It's central to the entire story and conversation. But the framework of Sola Scriptura unfortunately excludes and often leaves behind the very tools that allow us to interpret it effectively, namely community, experience, science, and most importantly the Holy Spirit. There is no place in Scripture that confirms the concept. It's a human construct that was a reactionary measure against the Papal construct and sadly had consequences that we're dealing with.

    What Tickle is suggesting is that Sola Scriptura is going away so it can be replaced with a more robust toolset that allows us to understand in discern Scripture more effectively.
  • Tara, I would actually say we are bound to flawed thinking regardless. We're broken human beings trying to listen to an story and interpret what it means. History reveals our profound ability to distort what we read.

    It doesn't mean we abandon the process. Instead we are called to a more wholistic approach, which I don't think Sola Scriptura supports.
  • Jonathan, could you clarify how exactly giving up the Sola Scriptura principle has any chance of bringing more unity than division? What will a future consensus be based on? On a democratic majority ... and exclusively on what is plausible to our modern mindset? What is the common ground that everyone can agree on and why? Sure, the reformation and the sudden access to Scripture for common folks allowed everyone to have an opinion and with it began the splintering into countless denominations. The only thing in my mind that has a chance to reverse the negative effects is a dialogue on what is most central to our faith according to Scripture, not a move away from the very foundation that has allowed us to have these conversations! And if I may enter the previous discussion - yes, there are indeed scriptural guidelines to support this: I'm thinking for example of John 1 and Hebrews 1 and their presentation of the Christ, the divine Logos, as the ultimate and final word of God. The Confessing Church during the Third Reich in Germany drew their confidence from this most basic foundation in their opposition to the Nazis. The Barmen Confession, in my opinion, is a logical continuation of the Sola Scriptura principle, and letting go of it may end up in a broader consensus on some issues, but the question is: will it really faithfully still represent the unchangeable gospel message?
  • Josh, I'm going to do something to change your question up and hopefully stimulate your thinking in a way that answers your question.

    You asked, "how exactly giving up the Sola Scriptura principle has any chance of bringing more unity than division?"

    Yet I could ask, "how exactly keeping the Sola Scriptura principle has any chance of bringing more unity than division?, when it has been a large part of the reason we can no longer dialog?"

    The evidence in history to support validating my question is exceedingly overwhelming. Yet how about yours? If anything, those who are questioning Sola Scriptura are asking for more dialog...and being criticized for doing it.

    I would actually suggest the story of Scripture points to a more robust understanding and toolset that would first be led by the Holy Spirit, but include community, science, experience AND Scripture. Scripture clearly points throughout the story that wisdom, which was the capacity to understand truth, was a fruit of the Spirit working in someone's life. Yet no one is suggesting Sola Spirita. Why? Because they work as part of a toolset.

    We need Scripture to tell us the story. We need the Holy Spirit to help us understand the story. We need a community of elders and brothers/sisters helping us to listen and discern. We need experience to validate the trust experience that leads us to truth. And we need science to discover what God has been doing all a long.

    And let me be clear. I'm have never said, nor am I suggesting we abandon Scripture. Far from it. I'm suggesting allowing it to find it's rightful place in Christian experience.
  • Jonathan,
    I'm not convinced (even historically) that the Sola Scriptura principle is the main culprit when it comes to division in the church. Just looking at the Early Church and the problems that are addressed in 1 Corinthians and James suggest a much simpler diagnosis of the dynamics involved. The lack of humility, godly wisdom and Christ focussed thinking and living is not something that will ever be solved by seemingly adding more tools to our toolbox or by attributing to them more authority than they had before (or lessen the authority of one). As a matter of fact, when it comes to divine authority, I don't believe that we are even in a position to pick and choose according to our personal (or corporate) preferences. The process you describe in coming to a better understanding and interpretation of Scripture is indeed necessary and in a sense has always taken place - no one lives in a vacuum or could avoid being influenced by these factors that mold our hermeneutics and our thinking processes. The "sola" in "Sola Scriptura" has never meant an exclusion of participants at the "round table", so to speak, of continuing conversation because of the recognition of our limited and flawed understanding of truth. But the reformers were keenly aware that we need a point of reference and dependable compass in order to navigate our way and be able to distinguish truth from error. In that sense, Scripture is not just an equal partner in a broad dicussion but the judge and referee. The reformers would have never argued that the Holy Spirit is not key to discerning God's voice in the biblical narrative. But they were well aware that even the Holy Spirit's guidance cannot be properly discerned without the scriptural criteria that speak about His focus and way of operating. Unity in the church (again: biblically defined) is not something we could ever create. If I understand Scripture correctly, the body of Christ is and has always been one. And because of that, our job is more one of dicovery and humble recognition rather than thinking we need to create something new or more effective. I am all for open conversation and rethinking our own premises and theological allegiances. I see the necessity for radical deconstruction when it comes to unreflected beliefs and unnecessary splits and anathemas. But if we start deconstructing our God-given point of reference, we may on the one hand very well be able to reach a broader consensus by eliminating everything that offends our modern mindset, at the same time we will also be unable to stop our very human tendency to recreate God in our own image.
  • Josh, I would suggest that your comment actually proves my point. Scripture is never read in a vacuum. It is read by people and thus subject to an interpretation. Once we agree to that, we must acknowledge that error is immediately introduced into the interpretation. Sola Scriptura by definition is a fallacy concept.

    But this doesn't negate the value of Scripture, just that it cannot stand alone. It must be read and therefore requires other tools to help interpret.

    The question is then how do we reduce the error. And that is why I suggest that it can't be Scripture alone. It must be a larger toolset that vets out our interpretation. If I say Scripture alone, then that has and does place the emphasis on the interpretation, not the Scripture. And this does nothing to solve the problems inherent in different interpretations. Division always comes when we refuse to submit to the Spirit's interpretation.

    I also realize that the call to Sola Scriptura had profoundly good affects on culture. It wrested that interpretation process out of the Pope's hands and placed it into the hands of the priesthood of all believers, even if they didn't like it.

    But slowly over time we've drifted back to the professional interpreter. And thus the subsequent 26,000 different denominations. This drifting is likely a modern concept but it cannot be separated from what Luther did. It just took that long to produce the culture we see today.
  • Jonathan,
    I kind of expected exactly this response. Maybe it's just a misunderstanding. It seems to me that you're not arguing against the Sola Scripture principle in terms of Scripture being the ultimate and authoritative source of divine revelation but as the ONLY source in our pursuit of truth. I certainly can go along with that, not just because it makes sense to me but also because the same point is stressed in Scripture itself.

    I'm not sure how you connect a drift back to the professional interpreter with 26,000 different denominations. If we actually all agreed on such a skilled individual, we'd have our new kind of pope uniting a literally catholic and united church. Tickle's argument seemed to be that the new emphasis on the priesthood of all believers during the reformation got us to where we are today in modern Protestantism. And it was this scriptural truth that not only energized the leaders of the reformation to stand firm in the face of such dominant powers but the people who now could read for themselves as well. As much as this may promote indidualism, it also our only hope in reuniting as well, simply by rereading that same central story again and together, and allowing it to interpret us and our actions!
  • Josh, sadly when people talk about a move away from Sola Scriptura, they assume we are talking about removing Scripture or the authority of Scripture, which is absurd. It's a knee jerk reaction. Scripture stands on its own regardless.

    Unfortunately the concept of Sola Scripture is deeply misleading. It does not create a robust tool set approach for understanding the story. And what Tickle and many others are talking about is that broadening of the toolset.

    Tickle's question ultimately drives at "Where is our authority?" And my answer to that is Jesus. Yet Jesus is best understood in a combination of elements that include Scripture but also the following of the Holy Spirit, experience, science, and community.

    And my argument has always been that Sola Scriptura presents, albeit unfortunately, an incomplete picture that cripples people in the discipleship process. It largely ignores that call to the leading of the Holy Spirit as the base element for understanding the story.

    In the end I think the larger Emergent community is saying the same thing I am. They're just not given credit for it because Emergent is such a lightning rod.
  • I understand your concern but the crippling process you describe has nothing to do with the historical concept of Sola Scriptura, rather with a fundamentalist and arrogant notion that says: "my interpretation of the Bible is more accurate than yours!" That was not Luther's stance before the emperor at the Diet of Worms or afterwards. Yes he had a differing interpretation from the traditional Roman Catholic teaching. But he invited a dialogue knowing that his interpretation was fallible - a dialogue on the basis that Scripture is still our common ground and supercedes human tradition and authority. The success or failure of the Emergent movement in trying to overcome the "divorce tendency" you mentioned in the other blog article, will have to be measured not in a reduced number of denominations necessarily, but an increased willingness to admit our personal limitations and to begin a dialogue that involves a much greater willingness to listen. The understanding that God's story and our own story cannot connect unless we allow the former interpret the latter is in my mind a reinforcement of the Sola Scriptura principle, not its abandonment.
  • Josh, I'm a linguistics/communications guy and the distinction creates a terrible framework for operating. I disagree with you that it has not created the mess we are in today. What Luther did, and the reformation did, produced a lot of the fruit we are in today because it shift the interpretation process onto the individual, thus the differences.

    And I will say it again. No one is saying abandon Scripture, just the Sola distinction.
  • Alright, if you're a linguistics guy, then you'll certainly agree that I also discussed the abandonment of a principle not of Scripture itself :-) . Let's not argue about things that we have no disagreements about.

    I also will not try to claim that the reformation had no direct effect on the shift in the interpretation process. I see it as a very necessary shift which has, like you say, produced both good fruits and also the mess we find ourselves in. But I think there can be no doubt that the "sola" was historically a reference to an objective authority apart from the interpretation process itself. It would be a horrible misunderstanding to claim that this high view of Scripture necessarily leads to division. It's not Scripture or a willingness to see Scripture as our ultimate authority in discerning truth that creates disunity but our personal unwillingness to listen to different points of view and to learn to disagree in an agreeable way.

    And yes, I will say it again as well: by maintaining the Sola Scriptura principle (and with it by the way also all the other "solas" of the reformation, like "sola gratia", "sola fide" and "solus Christus") we have a much better chance to have a common base for productive dialogue than by allowing ourselves to elevate consensus as the ultimate goal above even truth itself. If Jesus is the ultimate authority - and I believe we agree on that point too! - then I think that we can not only learn to recognize our own limitations but also to accept the fact that there will always be divisions as a result of fallen human nature taking offense at the truth (John 6:66).
  • Jonathan,
    I have a suggestion: instead of continuing this discussion in more or less abstract terms, simply pick one of the many issues dividing the church today and illustrate how the dropping of the "sola" in "sola scriptura" will bring believers together without compromising essential foundations of our faith.
  • Josh, I'm going to decline at this point because I'm beginning to formulate a different approach. I'm trying to formulate a post that explores what I'm thinking but it's still in process. If you want to answer your question in a post on your site, I'd be happy to join you. But I would ask you to begin first, flipping the question of how Sola reinforces. We'll see where it goes.
  • Fair enough. I'll post a link when it's ready.
  • O.k . Jonathan, here is the promised link:
    http://openmindedconversations.blogspot.com/200...
  • Tara
    Jonathan
    Will you explain to me what you mean when you say that community, experience, and science can help us interpret Scripture? I think that God emphasizes the importance of reading, praying, and meditating on scripture when we are studing it (2 Thes 2:13-3:5). I agree with you that through the body of believers (community) and through science we can taste the goodness of how powerful God is, but I do not think these aspects give us the actual foundation of our faith. When I meant when I said we are bound to flawed thinking, is that when we start to interpret the Bible through our own experiences in life....we drift away from the Bible's teaching. Our heart is deceitful above all things (Jer. 17:9) and sometimes my heart tells me things that do not line up with scripture. If I interpret many of the experienes and encounters I have had with people and start to call that truth then my thinking is flawed. We already have a set of guidelines clearly explained by God, and that should be what we always go back to in our everday life to evaluate our actions and thoughts.
  • Scripture is essentially a story of God interacting with creation. But understanding what is happening requires discernment. And that is not possible without the Holy Spirit's wisdom. So you can't separate Scripture from the work of the Holy Spirit. This is the first and most critical tool we work from.

    In fact, the story actually reveals that the Holy Spirit was given first (the Counselor). It took more than 300 years to collect the stories together into the Canon.

    But because we are working in broken bodies, we are still subject to error. Much of our process of understanding is then solidifying our interpretation, which are essentially judgments of reality and truth, through community, experience, and science. It's a deepening process of vetting what we think is true to an outside audience. I include science because history reveals that science deepens Scripture, not works against it. (as in Galileo)

    All I'm suggesting is that they work together. Because when we disconnect them we will inevitably trick ourselves into believing something that is not true. Sola Scriptura, by nature, doesn't teach a wholistic perspective to discernment.
blog comments powered by Disqus