I used to think progressive and emergence Christianity were more or less the same. But according to Phyllis Tickle, they are not. There are key differences…
on justice matters:
In dealing with matters of social justice, the Progressive stance and course of action generally are first intellectualized, then politicized, and finally formalized. By contrast, the Emergence posture or approach is far more pedestrian and humble in both its articulation and its delivery. Emergence Christians will defend vigorously their position that as long as some act of social justice has been a matter of “our doing something for them,” the act is fundamentally one of enlightened or informed self-interest, if not plain old commonsense. Social justice, Emergence contends, really is—really must be—an exercise in “us helping each other” in whatever way possible here and now because of the bond of commonality that is Christ in all of us.
and in their approaches to the Bible:
Almost as remarkable is the way in which the operative approach to Scripture differs between the two groups. The Progressive stance, once again, is far more intellectualized than is that of Emergence. Born in a time of burgeoning Pentecostalism, Emergence Christianity and Emergence Christians are naturally inclined—increasingly so, in fact—toward the approach of communal discernment and direct appeal to the Holy Spirit for explication and direction. Such a stance allows Emergence to be more or less innocent of biblical literalism and far more inclined toward a kind of apophatic or Orthodox actualism.
So emergence Christianity is pedestrian and humble, communal and Spirit directed.
My impression is different: social justice mission mixed with evangelical piety. Not humble – arrogant towards traditional evangelicals. They think of themselves as possessing a superior enlightenment.
I agree that liberals have generally been more intellectual than emergents.
I think that the relationship between emergents and liberalism is like the relationship between evangelical pop music and secular pop music.
The term emergence does not really fit the theology of the movement. I see no sign that they even understand the meaning of emergence in science and the crisis awareness of such emergence creates in theology and in ideas about justice. They are not young earth creationists, but their theology is similarly at odds with science.
What is ‘the meaning of emergence in science’?
I know little about the emergence movement, or how it differs from the emerging movement. Marcus Borg uses the term ‘emerging’, but he resembles the progressives Phyllis Tickle speaks about. And people seem to connect the term ‘emergence’ with evangelicals, which puzzles me.
So I don’t know. I just thought her description of things was interesting.
In science the term “emergence” is used instead of creation. Life and the universe have emerged, and are emerging, through chance and necessity. Evolution is an example of emergence. No plan. No goal. No design. No direction. No values. Just one thing after another.
I agree, her description is interesting. In the quote, she seems to admire emergent Christianity.
Everyone I have known who likes Borg came from an evangelical background, now rejects that background as being inferior, and associates being a Democrat with being a Christian. He is similar to emergents in that way.
.”..and associates being a Democrat with being a Christian”….who would have ever thought we would ever live to see such a paradigm shift…if i may be honest here i am included in the ‘defectors’..now what we may soon see is a huge vocal/visible rift within the christian ranks along party lines…Glenn Beck as the patriarch/pontiff of the republicans and Shawn Penn spearheading the christian democrats……:)
The description of creation as emergence reminds me of Genesis 1, where the world emerges day by day, not from randomness, though, but from the command of God. Genesis 1 is a poem about emergence.
Chris, I am not sure what you mean.
There are Hebraic poetic elements in Genesis 1, but Genesis 1 is not poetry in way of the literary genre we now associate with poetry. And Genesis 1 is not about emergence in the scientific sense. It is better to make a distinction here than to blur the lines.
Genesis 1 is about how the Sabbath and religious festivals became part of the created order, and it includes a claim made by ancient people to ancient people that the God of Abraham, not Baal or other gods in the near east, had slain the sea monster to create order.
Darwin described emergence. Genesis does not. There is no emergence anywhere in the Bible. With emergence, there is no second coming, no kingdom of God. With emergence, no fall and no redemption. With emergence, no creation. Emergence is just a term for the changes in species and the universe that have happened by chance and necessity. The term is intended to distinguish evolution from creation, to say that what we see has no purpose or intelligent cause or design. I doubt that you believe that is what Genesis 1 says.
Mike,
I know you are joking about this. We already have “a huge vocal/visible rift within the christian ranks along party lines.” At the seminary I attended the faculty shamed conservatives and Republicans – and they were brutally serious about it.
My own view is that the parties are mostly the same, and their fight is awful. I don’t think one can be merciful and at the same time be partisan.
I think Genesis 1 is poetry in a more open sense of that word. Call it a prose-poem, if you want. In his poems, particularly ones that catalog lots of things, Walt Whitman uses a style similar to Genesis 1, and we call his writing poetry.
I didn’t say Genesis 1 was about ‘emergence in the scientific sense.’ It is about emergence, though. That is, about things emerging. That’s a good word to describe how the different elements of the creation unfold themselves day after day in the story. That’s all I meant.