Anyway --back to the beginning with my question --initial impression of Tickle's approach... what think ye?
And as I intimated, I would like to offer my initial impressions.
And my confession: I am, generally, usually non-linear. I am not progress oriented nor outcome driven. I do not believe that 'history repeats itself' --No... --rather, in every generation we discover sin anew. And isn't that an unpopular thought.... if I were to offer you my world view, it would look something like this:
So, Tickle's opening approach leaves me scratching my head. In her opening statements, she paints a near universal movement of change in 500 year increments, not only in Christianity, but in Judaism and Islam as well. I find such broad sweeps of history to be breath-taking.
If the broad picture of change that Tickle paints is so, how does one factor the movement and understanding of Christianity in China? The history of Christianity in that neck of the world is so very different as to be impossible to include it in the very broad strokes she paints. (There is some really, really cool stuff here and here.) So, if she is wrong in one instance, can she be wrong in others?
Tickle's vibrant optimism --that change always brought about a better church certainly needs to be challenged in some degree. Such an approach to morphology of the church over time would lead one to the conclusion that we are a better church now than ever before.... I would certainly hesitate to agree.... primarily because this type of optimism is part of parcel of what some might call Progress History --a belief or theory that the world can become increasingly better in terms of science, technology, modernization, liberty, democracy, quality of life, etc.
Given the history of the last 100 years --the world wars, the genocide, ethnic cleansing, the 'better' bombs and weapons --I am not sure I can lay claim to the idea that humans have 'progressed.' Perhaps to the contrary....
This is certainly true in the Church as well --I mean, laying claim that we are a better church now than ever before. (And, I might add, fundamentalism is an entirely modern invention of the last century...)
Tickle could quite possibly be categorized as a 'progress' oriented history, with a particular Hegelian cyclical bent.... that her view of time is strictly linear, which in view of our contemporary understanding of time is just wrong! --all of which can be argued against and thus have Tickle dismissed... because the premise--the foundations--the world view with which she writes can be dismissed. Academically speaking....
But I think rather than succumbing to the academic trounce of the practice and theory of Tickle's presentation, we need to lift the veil and get to the grit of what she is saying --which is, in short --the church is a-changing, be not afraid.
That, I believe, we can handle.
So, how is the church a-changing? From what to what? From where to where?
Read on valiant reader. Read on!
No comments:
Post a Comment