PART 1

THE GREAT EMERGENCE

What Is It?

Although the thrust of this book will focus on the Great Emergence as it relates to Christianity in North America, it is helpful to remember its place within the broader context of emergence theory. Although it is impossible to do justice to its complexity here, there are a few basic ideas that can provide a fair impression.

The word “emergence” has been used in disciplines as diverse as architecture, physics, biology, sociology, economics, and politics. As far as we can tell, the word “emergent” was coined by psychologist George Henry Lewes in 1875 (the Great Emergence has indeed been emerging for a while now) in his book The Problems of Life and Mind to describe outcomes not derived from the sum or the difference of psychological forces. The outcomes Lewes described as emergent were new ones; that is, they were not expected causes or byproducts of what came before. In lay terms, this concept is not unlike the Gestalt idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The parts, when added together, create something more than simple addition can describe. Emergence theory, then, describes the phenomenon of truly novel structures and properties that arise from complex systems, seemingly out of nowhere, and quite literally often out of what looks like chaos. Emergence theory recognizes all the places and ways in the universe that the collective whole is greater than what we would have expected or assumed just by looking at its individual parts. Black circles and white space are transformed into a three-dimensional picture right before our eyes.

Emergence theory is in many ways a response to modern reductionism, which sought to reduce everything into irreducible parts. Reductionism was such a dominant way of viewing the world that you can readily see evidence of it in the economics of modern industrialism. This is quite beneficial when attempting to produce affordable cars on an assembly line, and not as beneficial when asserted indiscriminately to the humanities. To place this idea closer to our topic of religion, you can see evidence of reductionism in modern systematic theology, where concepts of God were broken down until one came to what were considered “irreducible” truths. If liberal theology was a house, therefore, the foundation upon which the rest of the house was built was personal experience. The conservative theological concrete slab, then, rested upon Scripture (and, by extension, a particular way of interpreting and understanding said Scripture). Theology influenced by emergence theory rejects reductionism and foundationalism entirely, denouncing the modern project of “irreducible” truths in favor of what philosopher W. V. O. Quine calls holism.[27] If a house is the metaphor of modern theology, a web is the metaphor for postmodern theology. A web of many beliefs holds meaning together in such a way that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

The Great Emergence describes a shift away from the view that the world is a machine capable of being understood—and, in many ways, manipulated—by dissecting it into pieces. Emergence theory, in a dizzying array of disciplines, describes a view of the world that finds its power not in irreducible parts but in complex cohesion.[28]

We may not be aware of the effects of emergence theory on our daily lives, but we can be sure the effects are there. Emergence theory is changing what we know of the universe, how businesses are structured, how economics is done, and how we see our relationship to the environment. It will certainly affect the way we view—and “do”—theology, church, and religion in general.

1. What are your reactions to Tickle’s immediate assertion that this “new season” of the Great Emergence affects every part of our lives?
2. Where have you seen evidence of the Great Emergence? Where have you seen evidence to the contrary, and why do you think that is?
3. Should the Church’s response to the Great Emergence differ from the response in other fields such as science, ecology, or philosophy? If yes, how so, and why?
4. Does this shift toward an emerging worldview seem distant from your own understanding of the world, or does it support your understanding of the world? In what ways can you draw parallels between emergence theory and your own faith journey?

1: Rummage Sales

As a means of reference and review, the chart below describes the four “Greats” that have occurred between the Early Church and today. Discuss how future generations may reflect back upon the time of the Great Emergence and fill out the chart.

1. Tickle specifies three consistent results of the Church’s rummage sale every five hundred years. What are they? How have these results transpired in past rummage sales?
2. It is notable that all three results Tickle describes are, upon completion, positive ones. This may be true at bird’s-eye view, but are there less positive results at ground level? How can congregations effectively handle the bumpier results during the transition?
3. Does Tickle’s assertion that rummage sales do not entirely destroy old structures reassure you or cause you concern?
4. How do you respond to the idea of your ecclesial tradition being rummaged and perhaps sold in its current form?
5. For some, the metaphor of a rummage sale may seem too demure. When the vestiges of faith you have known your entire life are being questioned, and changed, and perhaps even denounced, it can feel more like a wrecking ball coming through the walls of your house to make way for a new upstart development. In what ways does the metaphor of a rummage sale ring true? In what ways does it feel more like a wrecking ball? In what ways does it feel like both, or neither?
6. Does the author’s assertion that the previous “Greats” have led to a broader expansion of God’s story provide you hope? How so, or why not?

2: Cable of Meaning

Tickle begins the chapter by asserting that religion is a social construct. That is, religion is influenced by the larger culture as much as it influences culture. Using Tickle’s metaphor, religion is the soul of culture and culture is the body through which religion acts. Religion is the bearer of meaning, the cable that connects humanity to something bigger than ourselves. When, during times of transition, we begin to question the story that encases this meaning, it results in what often feels a bit like schizophrenia as we bounce from old story to new story without really being capable of settling in either one. This can readily be observed in countless religious debates over the past number of years when the participants might say, “I believe we are talking about two very different things.” Indeed, they likely are—one from the perspective of the old story and one from the perspective of the emerging one. Talking past one another, quite literally from two different worlds, is one of the most frustrating challenges in transitioning times.

Language plays a particularly important role in this process. Just as the cable encases meaning, language functions as the vessel ferrying meaning back and forth. As we begin to question the community story, words move from having one generally agreed-upon meaning to an assortment of meanings, perhaps even contradictory ones, and certainly in flux. What one used to mean by the word salvation or atonement or church is not what one currently intends to say; and yet, what other word is available to describe it? “What do you mean by that?” becomes a question requiring us to pull out the strands of spirituality, corporeality, and morality and discuss them ferociously. In this process, we are redefining in language what we mean to say as we attempt to re-story our understanding of the world.

1. Describe your experience of the cable of meaning. Does everything feel intact to you, or do you sense water seeping through?
2. Do you consider this current shift different from the standard generational gaps that seem to divide a parents’ generation from their child’s?
3. In what ways have you experienced the old story clashing with the new, emerging story? In what ways have you seen your local congregation or your faith tradition experience the clash of two competing community stories?
4. Have you experienced frustration as the meaning you intend when using a particular word or phrase is ferried back and forth in conversation with unpredictable outcomes?
5. What can we do to combat the difficulty of conversations that occur in the context of two different stories? How can we find ways to talk to one another rather than past one another?