certain of uncertainty?

It's truly amazing how far people will go to try to undermine biblical authority.

On pp. 77-80 of The Great Emergence, Tickle goes into Einstein and Heisenberg, about Einstein's Theory of Relativity and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. And what do these scientific theories have to do with the Bible...?

...Nor would the Heisenberg Principle stay safely tucked away in physics laws. Instead, "uncertainty" became the only fact that could be accepted as fact, not only in the popular mind, but also in large segments of the academic world as well

In particular, literary deconstruction planted its standard dead in the center of Heisenberg, claiming that there is no absolute truth, only truth relative to the perceiver. And, as an obvious consequence, all writing--be it sacred or secular--has no innate meaning until it is read and, therefore, has no meaning outside of the circumstances and disposition of the reader. Enter the battle of the Book. Enter the warriors, both human and inanimate, who will hack the already wounded body of sola scripture into buriable pieces. Enter the twentieth century's great, garish opening in the cable's waterproof casing of story.
Tickle, The Great Emergence, pp 79-80

If you've heard some people make arguments against the current postmodern virus, you'll likely have heard them sum up the postmodern position in a statement something like this, "The only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths". I mention that because Tickle may as well have said that when she writes ""uncertainty" became the only fact that could be accepted as a fact".

In other words, it is a statement that is it's own contradiction, it is self-refuting. One cannot believe it because if it is truth it is a false statement. To say that "The only certainty is uncertainty" is to make even that statement an uncertain statement.

So, right off, we can see that postmodernism is a realm of madness.

Even more subject to madness and the result of it is the statement "there is no absolute truth, only truth relative to the perceiver". McLaren goes on in one of his books about how postmodernism is supposedly a reaction to Nazism and the certainties that led up to it. Even granting that those early pomos may have been at least partially right in the diagnosis of the problems leading up to Nazism, can we really say that extreme uncertainty really sufficiently answers what went wrong? If truth is merely relative to the perceiver, than upon what basis can one even answer someone who says that something like Nazism was a good thing? If there are no absolute truths, than how can one say that Auschwitz was evil? And if such a thing happens again (and things like it have happened since then, in places like the Soviet Union and Cambodia and China and Darfur), how are these disciples of uncertainty ready to say that those who do those things are wrong?

a great insignificant event

Out of the mathematics of general relativity would come ideas and postulates that are themselves also matters now of household conversation; time as another, and fourth, dimension; time as capable of being slowed; the ongoing expansion of the universe; the Big Bang. And in conjunction with the work of other brilliant, popularly known physicists like Edwin Hubble, general relativity would eventually make it possible, on July 20, 1969, for Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to walk on the surface of Earth's moon. In doing so, they walked on what always before had been the footstool of God, and that made all the difference. Literalism based on inerrancy could not survive the blow (though it would die a slow and painful death); and without inerrancy-based literalism, the divine authority of Scripture was decentralized, subject to the caprices of human interpretation, turned into some kind of pick-and-choose bazaar for skillful hagglers. Where now is our authority?
Tickle, The Great Emergence, p. 82

Well, that's certainly a mouthful of a paragraph, and one not slacking in it's claims. Shall we take a look at them?

For example, where is it ever said in Scripture that the moon is God's footstool? I can think of a place where the Earth is call that, but never the moon.

Second, what is the connection between walking on the moon and biblical literalism, such that literalism must now die a slow and painful death because man has walked on the moon? I think I'm pretty familiar with the Bible, and can't say I've ever noticed anyplace in it where the subject of walking on the moon is dealt with pro or con. I don't recall it being a part of any prophecy, or a prophetic sign.

Third, why does man having walked on the moon suddenly mean that Scripture is now "subject to the caprices of human interpretation, turned into some kind of pick-and-choose bazaar for skillful hagglers"? In fact, what is particular new about that situation? Couldn't that be said about almost any time since the early church, that there were those who interpreted the Scriptures through their own desires and biases, and picked-and-chose among the things in the Bible they kept and those they ignored or tossed aside?

In other words, as grand an achievement as walking on the moon was, in a biblical sense it was in effect a non-issue and non-event. "Thou shalt not kill" was as meaningful the second before Armstrong's boot touch the moon's soil as it was the second after. Jesus' words that "no one comes to the Father's expect by Me" were as true on July 19, 1969 as they were on July 21 of that year, because one thing that was not found on the moon was another way to God. We don't know what the angel's thought when man set foot on that far-off satellite, but we know that they rejoice when one small human repents of his or her sins to God.

And, again, in other words, Tickle (and humanity as a whole it would seem) is simply grasping at straws, trying to find any way she can to undermine the authority of the Bible, to in essence say "Has God really said?".

Because, yes, God has really said, and yes, people like her don't particularly care for what God has really said.

one can be known by one's heroes

But in the name of historical accuracy as well as fairness, we need to remind ourselves, before we go any further, that "Scripture only and only Scripture" really was, if not badly wounded, then certainly badly bruised, well before Einstein and Heisenberg ever came along. Their work would only reinforce and broaden an investigation already in progress
Tickly, The Great Emergence, p. 80

What investigation is that (and what kind of word is that for a postmodern to use, anyway?)? The so-called Quest for the Historical Jesus.

Tickle points to two men in particular in this part of her book, Reimarus and Schweitzer. Here's a bit from Wikipedia's page on Reimarus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reimarus

Hermann Samuel Reimarus (December 22, 1694, Hamburg - March 1, 1768, Hamburg), was a German philosopher and writer of the Enlightenment who is remembered for his Deism, the doctrine that human reason can arrive at a knowledge of God and ethics from a study of nature and our own internal reality, thus eliminating the need for religions based on revelation. He denied the reality of miracles and is credited by some with initiating historians' investigation of the historical Jesus.

Modern estimates of Reimarus may be found in the works of B. Punjer, Otto Pfleiderer and Harald Høffding. Pünjer states the position of Reimarus as follows: "God is the Creator of the world, and His wisdom and goodness are conspicuous in it. Immortality is founded upon the essential nature of man and upon the purpose of God in creation. Religion is conducive to our happiness and alone brings satisfaction. Miracles are at variance with the divine purpose; without miracles there could be no revelation" (Pünjer, History of Christian Philosophy of Religion since Kant, Engl. trans., pp. 550-57, which contains an exposition of the Abhandlungen and Schutzschrift).

God cannot interrupt His own work by miracles; nor can He favour some men above others by revelations which are not granted to all, and with which it is not even possible for all to become acquainted. But of all doctrines that of eternal punishment is most contrary, Reimarus thinks, to true ideas of God; and it was this point which first caused him to stumble" (History of Modern Phil., Eng. trans. (1900), vol. ii. pp. 12, 13).

So, right off, we run into some pretty extra-biblical and un-biblical ideas in this man. Although the Bible is filled with accounts of miracles, he says that God cannot work miracle. He says that Hell is contrary to whatever he means by true ideas of God.

It's a dangerous and arrogant thing to say what God can and cannot do apart from what He Himself has told us in His Word.

And here is the page on Schweitzer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Schweitzer

Schweitzer realizes that critical First Century theology has been ignored by the faithful. Almost all early followers are known to have been illiterate. Only those few literate individuals, in power, could be aware of critical unfulfilled First Century theology. To expose this issue, the early leaders would surely lose power, and their employment. Schweitzer observes that the early Church leaders continued their employment by introducing a modified theology, once the prompt return, was found to be not literal.

Schweitzer concludes that First Century theology originating in the lifetimes of those who first followed Jesus is far removed from those beliefs later made official in Nicaea, almost 300 years later, under Constantine. Schweitzer writes that the variations of Christianity that now exist, in modern times, contradict the urgency of what Jesus originally proclaimed as his First Century theology. Each new generation of followers anticipates that their generation will be the one to see the world destroyed, another world coming and the saints governing a new earth.

Schweitzer seems to be claiming that a kind of "De Vinci Code" type of cover-up was done in regards to Christ's statements about His return, even though much of the difficulties in those can be explained by good theology (something that does well in explaining many difficulties).

By the closing decades of the twentieth century, Jesus scholarship, with Reimarus, Schweitzer, and Heisenberg as tis intellectual forebears, had become the life work, in public space of superb and popularizing scholars like Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, Elaine Pagels, and Karen King.
Tickle, p. 81

Wow, there's a line-up to inspire confidence, yes-sir-ree (not). Jesus Seminar hacks and new-Gnostic pop stars. What a bunch of maroons.

Though it's probably a point she's making, but maybe not one she's wanting ot make--once you play fast-and-loose with the Word, what else can you end up with but people who think they know better than God, picking and choosing what they want from it (Jesus Seminar) and adding to it even the most contrived and stupid of works (Gnosticism and particularly the much-refuted (false) Gospel of Thomas).

From Reimarus' denial of miracles and revelation to the Jesus Seminar and the new rise of Gnosticism, not to mention the emergent church. What a hefty lump a little leaven can leaven.

a cycle for arrogance

The Right Reverent Mark Dyer, an Anglican bishop known for his wit as well as his wisdom, famously observes from time to time that the only way to understand what is currently happening to us as twenty-first-century Christians in North America is first to understand that about every five hundred years the Church feels compelled to hold a giant rummage sale. And, he goes on to say, we are living in an through one of those five-hundred-year sales.
Tickle, The Great Emergence, p. 16

This isn't the first time I've come on this concept. I think it was McLaren who said much the same thing in one of his books.

I think there are some questions we can ask abou this, though.

For example, Christianity has only been around abot 2100 years, so how much can we infer from a seeming 500 year cycle when we've had so very few of them? In what stone is it written that about every 500 years something drastic is suppose to happen in Christianity?

Also, why 500 years? Let's grant that maybe Tickle and those historians who have taught her may have noticed something, still, what if they have picked other numbers of year? For example, 400 or 300.

A bit later in the book, Tickle tries to support her claim by refering to things that happened in those +-500 year cycles that have been given the moniker "great"--Gregory the Great, the Great Schism, the Great Reformation (though I'm not familiar with that moniker for the Reformation; she says it's used a lot, but I can only raise the eyebrows at that claim). Which I guess is meant to support her claim the we are now in the Great Emergence.

But I can't help but find that a bit of a convenience for her--if every 500 years something "great" happens, then since we are now 500 years from the last "great" we should be in the middle of a "great" happening now.

But is that so? Why should we assume that?

If, for example, we went back 400 years, or 250, or even a not-round number like 137, what would we see happening at those times? 400 years might take us to the conquering and settling of the new world, 250 would put us close to the American Revolution, 137 may be close to the industrial revolution and the "discovery" of evolution.

In terms of Christianity, what may be significant about those times? Well, the new world was seen, among other things, by some as a land of escape from religious persecution. Despite claims by such as Tickle, the American Revolution and founding of the United States were events highly influenced and grounded in the Christian religion and biblical thought, and the result was a nation where people were given the freedom to worship God as they saw fit without the government telling them how to do so or not do so (within the realms of moral laws, of course; meaning that child sacrifices were not allowed, for example).

Evolution, of course, has had a quite large effect on religion, and is in fact still a point of division.

My point is simply this--don't take Tickle 500 year cycle as being anything but an observation that may be worth something, but isn't necessarily as much of a thing as she wants it to mean, and certainly don't think that simply because emergents happen to be around at the point of some arbitrary 500 year cycle that they have any right to claim to themselves being epoch-making. It's an appeal to ego, a way of making emergents feel central and important, and that is all it is.