Slouching Towards Bethlehem
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
- W.B. Yeats, The Second Coming
I remember that this poem captured my imagination back when I was in high school. Yeats' personal beliefs held that history moved in 2000 year cycles as represented by conical spirals. One spiral represented religious power and the other secular powers. As history unfolded, these "gyres" increased and decreased in inverse proportions. Every 2000 years a major upheaval occurred for each. So around the birth of Christ, the secular Empire of Rome was at its strongest and religious power weak. But at that moment, history shifted with the birth of Christ. Religion increased in power for the next 1000 years then started to decrease as scientific advances began giving secular systems the edge. To Yeats, as the year 2000 approached and religion spiraled down to its weakest point, the stage was set for some great change to occur. And so he asked – "what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
While I didn't buy into Yeat's occult beliefs in dualistic powers guiding the unfolding of history, I recognized the truth behind the patterns and changes in history he described. History, especially religious history, does seem to function in cycles of a sort. One witnesses some great event or renewal movement that inspires a few generations but which dwindles in influence and power over time. Eventually its power and passion have become so weak that a new renewal occurs starting the cycle over again. It is fascinating to trace these sorts of developments through history.
So I've been intrigued to hear Phyllis Tickle speaking and writing on these historical trends recently. I assume this is the topic of her upcoming book The Great Emergence, but I've heard her speak on it recently on the Mars Hill podcasts and to Sojourners Magazine. She describes that every 500 years, there is upheaval and renewal in the church – and that we are in one of those times right now. The zeitgeist of the age, the issues in the world, and the moving of the Holy Spirit all conspire to effect great change. Phyllis Tickle is calling our current change the "great emergence" – referring not just to the emerging church, but to all the reforming movements in the church today. I look forward to reading her book and hearing more of her perspective on the matter.
But what amuses me the most is that the current changes occurring in the church (and the ones in the past for that matter) were viewed as a malevolent force more reminiscent of Yeat's "rough beast" than the movings of the Holy Spirit. Change is feared and its harbingers vilified (if I hear one more person refer to Brian McLaren as the antichrist…). The calls of the reformers are not properly understood and often seen as a rejection of all that has come before. While it may be difficult to convince some that questioning and critique is not rejection (or arrogance), I think Yeat's imagery could prove useful in this case. The widening gyres represent a continuous unfolding of history that expands and contracts, but never breaks away fully from its spherical path. What one experiences is a shift not a genesis. Accepting that perspective may help some more easily dwell within the unfolding of history.
With Yeats' I agree that "things fall apart; the centre cannot hold." But I believe that to be a good thing – the impetus that pushes us to renewal and revival.
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
While I would refrain from referring to Brian McLaren as the anti-Christ (though would I confidently refer to him as a wolf in sheep's clothing), your reference to him does raise a question. When do views in the Emerging Church/Emergent become heretical? Can heresy take place in the Emerging Church? And, if all types of authority are forbidden (or communal), where does authority lie that would justly affirm something as either heretical or non-heretical? When does questioning and the propensity to question for questions sake become sinful? Or, as Doug Pagitt insists in his new book, does sin exist or at least offend God?
And, I would challenge Tickle's contention regarding change taking place every five hundred years in the same manner as which Emergents would like to place themselves. Those involved in the Emergent conversation engage in historical revisionism coupled with blind naivety and generalities. While great movements of the past are noticeable, they are far removed from what is occurring today. What went for re-structuring in the past, has now reared its ugly head as revisionism. These are two separate historical trajectories and thus Tickle is making a false comparison. It would be helpful for the emerging church to place themselves in the long line of reformation, but reformation is different than revisionism.
Dieter -
Yes heresy can exist anywhere. Yes there can be and are issues in the Emerging church. But you obviously are assuming the worst of everyone in this movement. Have you tried to engage and understand before reacting out of fear?
I think I mentioned above that the emerging movement is just part of the change taking place in the church right now. All around the world people are rethinking the structures of church and, yes, our theological traditions. People are realizing that certain forms and assumptions passed down to us from a particular culture in a particular time aren't universal truths, but one way of being christian. So change is in the air moving to a more vibrant manifestation of the church.
Some will of course label such as heresy. Most reformers get labeled that at some point. You can call us revisionists, but I would point out that it is impossible to not be a revisionist when it comes to history. All perspectives on history are interpretations. All histories are revisionist in that they seek to tell a story from one particular viewpoint and to shore up certain ideologies. We are merely suggestion a new way of viewing history that we think presents the story better (perhaps more truthfully, at least more meaningfully).
and I would caution you against confusing forbidding authority with having communal authority. Hierarchical authority isn't the God ordained system. The culture of the world is pushing against the old Western hierarchy and making room for this communal authority that respects people more. It is just history unfolding. Similarly I pity you if you think asking questions is sinful. In the old Jewish traditions at the Passover children are encouraged to ask questions – even ones to which no answer is known. The children who ask stupid or controversial questions aren't seen as bad. The child who asks no questions is. Questioning should always be part of faith, it is more of a sin not to ask than ever to ask.
That's really the question isn't it? You accuse the emerging church of being "heretical" and "revisionist", but by whose standards of orthodoxy? Rome's? Luther's? Dobson's? Yours? Where would you place that authority, and why? (And if you answer "the Bible", then whose interpretation of the Bible?)
Tell me the standard by which you determine heresy and I'll tell you whether we're heretical or not.
bah – cross posted again
Yeah, I heard her speak at a recent event. Had never heard of her. I'm sure I heard the same thing you do. It was intriguing and she's clearly a brilliant person and a wonderfully creative thinker. I have a tendency to greatly doubt any such neat system. I'm not saying that systems don't exist or that history and humanity might have cycles and things we could discover. But I don't put much faith in them because:
1. We're just wrong so often. And we really don't know what happened in the past. We only have our historic interpretations of it. And it's pretty tempting to mold history into what we need it to be.
2. Wildcards. About the time you think you have a system figured out, a wildcard drops in. Some huge event you didn't plan on. Some powerful trend that changes everything. Soon you realize that you're saying, "I think I understand the trends here except when something weird happens. And…uh…something weird happens pretty much all the time.
3. I don't like the way these things make me feel. Very deterministic. I realize that's just personal feelings, but I have them.
I agree with Real Live Preacher. Phyllis Tickle has some great things to say but the 500 year cycle seems just too neat and tidy. Not to mention convenient and self-congratulating, if you happen to find yourself at the end/beginning one of the 500 year periods (as defined by the person positing the hypothesis) and involved in some cutting edge change that might just be as pivotal as the birth of Christ, the protestant reformation, or the fall of the Roman Empire (!). Sure those are all watershed events – though I'd kind of put the birth of Jesus in a category of its own. But is the sample size large enough to say that "Every" 500 years something big is going to happen? And you end up leaving out a lot of other historical turning points that were pretty nearly as pivotal, at least certainly as pivotal as anything going on currently. It just sounds kind of conspiracy theory-ish to me.
I can buy the idea of cycles of stagnation and renewal though. That's pretty evident even if you can't pin it down to a predictable cycle of "every so many years." Also evident is that often the renew-ers overreact and to their impoverishment jettison some practices and beliefs of their immediate predecessors that didn't deserve to be rejected or jetissoned, and that later groups have to come back and rescue or rediscover.
honestly its just a way of understanding history. Cycles are evident everywhere.
Phyllis Tickle is a great cultural observer of religion (she was the religion editor for Publisher's Weekly for years) I highly recommend reading her books on religion in America.