Talk:Emerging church/Archive 2

This archive covers from the very end of July 2005 until the end of 2005.

Capitalization

The article is named Emerging Church with a capital C (the capital E is inevitable), but the text pretty consistently refers to the emerging church with lower-case letters. Normally this sort of thing would be capitalized (Roman Catholic Church, Episcopal Church, Lutheran Church, etc.). Does the E/emerging C/church have a policy that its name is to be written lowercase (like k.d. lang), or is this just sloppy editing? If the former, the article should be moved to emerging church (with a note explaining that the e should be lowercase); if the latter, then we need to go through the article and capitalize it correctly. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 14:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

If you read the article you will notice that the E/emerging C/church is a movement. It is not an organization or a denomination. So the capitalization is not really an issue. There is no governing body to state whether it should be capitalized or not, so it's pretty much up to each person's discretion. I'm sure no one would have a problem if you went through and changed them all one way or the other.Icj tlc 17:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I'd say it should be capitalized. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 18:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd say go by predominant usage. A skim of Google hits supports lower case: sites for those involved use it - eg [1], [2] - as does this mainstream PBS news feature. I get a slight impression that the capitalised form is used by its critics - for instance, [3] and [4] - so opting for that isn't entirely value-free. Tearlach 18:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, before I saw your message I already did it. You can change it back, though. I also changed the word "missional" to "missionary" (except in a direct quote) because I don't see what "missional" is supposed to mean that "missionary" doesn't mean. I also changed "postmodernism" to "postmodernity" (except in the title of a source and the category) because having read postmodernism and postmodernity it seemed to me the latter is more what's intended here. Again, you can change it back if that was a bad move. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 18:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

OK: I restored the lower case. I agree about "postmodernity". "Missional" does have a specific meaning, which needs somehow defining - see The Missional Church and Missional Communities for a couple of descriptions. Tearlach 19:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Shall we move the article to Emerging church then, too? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Eurgh. I suppose yes, with a technical limitation note, like K.d. lang. Tearlach 02:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Although I was the one who brought it up, I'm now skeptical about the need for the technical limitation note. If there's no authority saying "We spell our name lower case", then it probably isn't necessary, especially if emerging is capitalized at the beginning of a sentence or other places where common nouns are capitalized. That seems to be the case here, where he writes "What is 'emerging church'?" but "Emerging church is...". The other thing that strikes me there is the absence of an article: it's not "The emerging church is..." or "An emerging church is..." --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The general convention that I have followed in my academic work is that "church" is only capitalized when it refers to a proper noun, i.e. The Roman Catholic Church. Thus, a reference to the 20th century church, or the church of Christ is lowercase. The adjective "emerging" should be lowercase, just as we would write "the twentieth century church." I think the whole article should be moved to emerging church without a note explaining why. This is not about the emerging/emergent church and its preferences, this is merely a stylistic edit based on recent English practice. Thus no explanation is necessary. njesson August 1, 2005 18:46 (UTC)

I've always seen "emerging church" in lower case. I think that's how McLaren and Pagitt use it anyway.

"Emerging Church" as capital letters suggests a degree of centralization that I believe a movement that describes itself as a "conversation" would wish to avoid. Also, I've never seen "house church" capitalized before either. So I'd support njesson's proposal. Evan Donovan 02:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Dispute with "moderns"

"Modern" Christians often critique the movement as adopting and conforming too easily to postmodern thought, neglecting "modern" evangelical theology, praxis, and thought. But many "moderns" criticize the emerging church for its ongoing use of false antitheses in which anything they don't like is labeled "modern" and then mischaracterized. McLaren's "A Generous Orthodoxy" commits this fallacy in every chapter. A "modern" idea or practice is caricatured and then pit against the emerging church idea or practice so as to make the emerging church idea or practice come out on top. But then when these emerging church ideas or practices are exposed as being postmodern, their responses are evasive.

This slides into POV. Who precisely are the "moderns" here? Modernist Christianity? Liberal Christianity? What's the evidence for this dispute? How can it be described objectively? Tearlach 16:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

What's The Point?

I keep returning to this page to see if I can find some cohesion or clarity, but all I find are arguments and edit wars regarding some rather asinine topics(see Capitalization). Whether it's a movement or a conversation depends on who you talk to. Missional or Missionary? Technically we should be both. Missional in our lifestyles and Missionaries to the world. Bibliography should have been left in, so those of us that aren't getting clarification from sites like this can read what theologians and people actually involved in E/emergent C/church have to say on the subject. It's kind of sad that the discussion page is longer than the article itself. Maybe the article should be scrapped all together until some general concensus on the E/emergent C/church can be reached. How does one define something that hasn't taken a real shape or developed any true characteristics or been given a chance to grow? Seems like we are counting our chickens before they hatch. Anyways, I'm rather dissapointed in what I'm seeing here and if this is what can be expected of the E/emergent C/church maybe we should kill it before it goes anywhere.

Quote from above

"i tend to see this as very undefinable, and if you strive to define it, it is no longer emerging, it is what you think emerging must be and i think we are so beyond that - now..."

Maybe I'm missing the point...maybe we're all missing the point. Icj tlc 19:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Let's do it! Scrap the lot, and rebuild. Tearlach 22:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 23:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

You agree to what? That we are missing the point. The article itself represents the E/emerging C/church. The general undefinability of it is the definition of it. I don't want the answers boxed up and handed to me on a nifty "user edited" wiki, I want answers that lead to more questions. I want the article back the way it was, grammar errors and all. No matter how often the article changed it has still informed. This page Talk:Emerging_Church is the one that I have issues with. It is supposed to be a conversation page, but all anyone is doing is arguing. When you have an article that is as controversial, and is being edited by many users, as this page is, it's going to be hard to define something that no one seems to agree on and that in theory shouldn't be defined (see above). Can we have the article back now and at least start to work together to produce something informative and educational to those that are actively emerging or at least looking into what all the hub-bub is about. All replys welcome. [5] Icj tlc 23:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

You agree to what?

You said Maybe the article should be scrapped all together. Which bit of that did I fail to understand?! This is an encyclopedia: its job is to try to explain. If it's a philosophical stance of those involved in the emerging church to resist definition and categorisation, then that could be reported. But I don't buy that: a quick Google on "emerging church" finds plenty of soundbites from participants saying what it does and what its characteristics are. Tearlach 09:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Revert to May 4th

I've reverted the main text to May 4th 2005, which seems - apart from lack of sourcing and having a humungous link farm - to be a pretty clear start.

Can anything be salvaged, or edited down, from the more recent version?

Characteristics Though expressions of the emerging church vary according to cultural context, tradition and school of thought, they share some distinguishing characteristics including a common and unique language of discourse; encouragement of creative expression; holistic forms of worship; fluency in new media; sensitivity to postmodernity; organizational simplicity; a missionary approach; an ecumenical commitment; and placing value on social justice.

Origins The emerging church originated in reaction to many perceived problems of the late 20th century Church: declining attendance of Protestant churches, particularly amongst Generation X, concern over how the Church would adapt to postmodernity, and increasing suspicion of the missiology of the market-driven mega-church and institutionalized Christianity.

Initially described as a conversation, the emerging church's increasing extension to Asia, Africa, and South America by 2005 led some ecclesiastical scholars, thinkers, and practitioners to describe it as a movement. Others debate this, arguing the term inappropriate ^[6] when there is no central leadership and no communal doctrines or order.

Influence of postmodernity Postmodernity set the cultural context for the emerging church in the West and influenced emerging church thought. Through his work, Stanley Grenz (1950-2005), author of Primer on Postmodernity, urged the emerging church in its postmodern context and conditioning to personify the Christian gospel with a post- individualistic, post- rationalistic, post- dualistic, and post- noeticentric attitude. Grenz envisioned the emerging church emphasizing communal living and the individual in interdependent relationships, human beings as more than cognitive creatures, doctrinal statements secondary to the core objective of the Christian faith to move people toward Christ; and an understanding of knowledge that serves “the attainment of wisdom.”^[7]

Brian McLaren, emerging church author and prominent figure, contends that postmodernity has positive and negative characteristics. According to McLaren, some forms of early postmodernity are dangerous, but are needed in order to restore balance to cultural thought and behavior. McLaren encourages the emerging church to direct postmodernity towards positive tendencies.^[8]

New media and the emerging church The emerging church excels in the use of new media. The connection to developing generations and Christianity is predicted to be enabled by a focus upon communication.^[9]. Hence, the fusion of old and new media often brings a sense of community and connection to the emerging church. The advent of new media allows the emerging church to exist in virtual, online forms. Internet churches, individual and community blogs, online message boards, and wikis often build new media relationships through ongoing conversation about life, spirituality, and the church. Moreover, new media not only deliver community and conversation, but arguably fuel emerging church thought globally.

Terminology: "conversation" or "movement"? Some EC thinkers and practitioners describe the emerging church as a "conversation" and not a "movement", arguing that at present it is still too unstructured to qualify as the latter. For instance, Brian McLaren of the prominent emerging church network Emergent says that "movement" carries connotations of a clear leadership and agenda. "Right now Emergent is a conversation, not a movement. We don't have a program. We don't have a model" [10].

Theological developments

Missiology The emerging church arguably does not have a common missiology. Perhaps, inspired by the missiological works of Roxburgh, Bosch, Lesslie Newbigin, Hunsberger, and the Gospel and Our Culture Network (GOCN), the emerging church has discovered grounds for a renewed missionary theology. As a result of insufficient theological depth on how churches perceive their identity and then how churches associate with their cultural context, Hunsberger addresses Newbigin’s ideology of churches becoming domesticated by culture instead of occupying a domestic missiology that confronts culture. Theological depth and cultural context are essential questions surfacing in the missiological inquiries of the emerging church. Guder addresses the core of missionary perspective being concerned with the Kingdom of God. Modern missiology often focuses upon building the Church collectively or adding to the numbers of individual churches, thus focusing on building bigger and better churches which produce religious goods and services for consumption.^[11] The emerging church seeks to understand and renew the mission of Christ in its postmodern context. Chris Seay, emerging church Pastor, has defended this position, saying, "It should be clear we are championing the gospel and missional values, not what (some) describe as ‘ministry intentionally influenced by postmodern theory.’" Guder suggests there are three major distinctions concerned with surfacing missiology:

• The church as a body of people sent on a mission in contrast to the church as an entity located in a building or in an institutional organization
• The church as a community of gathered people brought together by a common calling and vocation (sent people)
• A shift from church-centered view of mission (mission is about building a church) to an emphasis on the mission of God (mission is about the Kingdom or reign of God)

Additional Improvements

Cleaned intro. Replaced Structure and Commonality with characteristics from this version. Supported by references. removed Historial Context because none of that is supported in any sources. Old Ecclesiology section didn't add anything to article. Merely stated that there is no common stated eccelsiology; replaced with missiology. Cleaned references. Removed external links per wikipedia admin (turns into self-promotion of emerging churches). Hope it's not too academic. --Artisan949 09:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

External links again

List reverted. There was no consensus, only a unilateral assertion (Talk:Emerging_Church#External links) that there should be no links to emerging church sites. Such links are standard for articles on religious groupings (for instance, Anglicanism has external links to Anglican sites). This article is about the emerging church. As long as it doesn't turn into a link farm and makes some effort to focus on representative/useful sites, it's only reasonable to have links to some examples, as well as collective sites such as www.emergingchurch.info. Tearlach 01:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You weren't around before. But the links became over ~50 long. The churches on the list as well are not all considered EC. No way to confirm????? The sites are therefore not useful. Additionally, it becomes a place for self promotion. Maybe should not be something as broad as EC sites. try something else. I removed churches. There are plenty of sites online with such lists. --70.187.148.156 10:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

You weren't around before. Irrelevant: I am now. This argument is a straw man. Linkspam can be dealt with as it happens, not by banning all links. Let editors collectively decide if a particular link is useful or self-promotional. Tearlach 11:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Umm. I just removed some (IMO) linkspam. Hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes. If I am, I'm sure someone will let me know. Danlovejoy 22:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

One thing that would really help, for the whole article, is if people stop introducing references on a "Hey, here's another thing that vaguely relates to the emerging church" basis. Links should be chosen for maximum general usefulness. References are supposed to be just that: sources that were actually used to research the article. That should be the test for inclusion. Tearlach 23:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Um...

If you'll forgive an outside perspective, having read through both the article and the discussion page, I am left entirely confused as to what the Emerging Church is, when if was founded, who by, with what noteworthy aims and doctrinal beliefs, and what it's geographical distribution is.

I followed this link having never heard of the Emerging Church before. The only thing I think I have understood correctly is that it is a missionary organisation, but even there I don't know whether it is domestic missionary, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, or third world missionary.

As to my usual abilities to comprehend information, well... I am a former Mensan and a professional author (with a degree in Anthropology), currently writing a book on Symbolism. I am used to collegiate papers, dry encylopedias, and even media puff. I fear that my only conclusion is that this article is greatly flawed, particularly when compared to Wikipedia's usual high standards.

Tim, tumbleworld, gmail dot com at. 213.42.2.10 16:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

What? You mean this doesn't make it crystal-clear?

Hunsberger addresses Newbigin’s ideology of churches becoming domesticated by culture instead of occupying a domestic missiology that confronts culture. Theological depth and cultural context are essential questions surfacing in the missiological inquiries of the emerging church.

Seriously, you're not the only one to think so - trouble is, efforts to improve it constantly meet resistance from editors determined to keep it couched in obscurity. It may be some mind of postmodern thayng: the emerging church is soooo kewl and postmodern that it defies precise definition, so the article should be equally mind-numbingly imprecise and uniformative. So of course links to sites that actually explain it are out. Tearlach 17:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I have dived in. I'm not a former (or current) Mensan, but I think I've improved the intro, at least. ;-) Danlovejoy 03:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The Nature of Change

This page has been edited to the point of being no use. The ideas expressed are not emerging, and with the exception of a few, the links being offered are not emerging. The people changing this page are not expressing the views of the emerging church, and they change what those in the emerging place on this page - sorry, but all links to this page should be viewed with a very skeptical eye. - unsigned comment by 71.48.5.76 (talk · contribs)

So explain! What do you think are the views of the emerging church? What is the evidence for your statement? All I'm seeing are arbitrary deletions of references and links to articles on the subject. Tearlach 10:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Clean Up - Again

I have marked the page for clean up. It is in dire need of major editing. For the information it contains, it should be about 1/4 of its current length. Danlovejoy 13:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Pioneers in the Emerging Church movement

"the following people are often recognized as important thinkers and pioneers" I don't want to sound harsh - but anyone would think that the 'emerging church' started in North America. This list of people, while influential in the thinking of many people, are all from North America. What about people like Dave Tomlinson (The Post-Evangelical, SPCK 1995), Pete Ward (Liquid Church), Mike Riddell (Threshold of the Future, SPCK, 1998), Alan Jamieson (A Churchless Faith) and the list goes on... Perhaps we ought to avoid this section with the title 'pioneers' and be consistent with the egalitarian leadership culture and not put up a list of people like this. Perhaps the bibliography or references used to create the article is where it ought to be left? --entheos 03:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

removed a couple of people... sorry. I think a few less than influential peoplemight be trying to slip their names in here

Quakerism?

It sure sounds to me as if Quakerism shows most of the features mentioned in this article:

• Highly creative approaches to worship and spiritual reflection, as compared to many American churches in recent years. This can involve everything from the use of contemporary music and films through to liturgy or other more ancient customs. The goal in this area is generally to make the church more attractive to the unchurched.

No. Quaker meetings are fairly stereotyped in form.

• A minimalist and decentralized organizational structure.

Yes. Quaker meetings are loosely supervised by committees and "elders." There is no real central authority; the closest thing to it is a person referred to as the "clerk" of the meeting.

• A flexible approach to theology whereby individual differences in belief and morality are accepted within reason.

Yes. In fact there is no creed and "individual revelation" is accepted and is assumed to occur during Meeting for Worship.

• A holistic view of the role of the church in society. This can mean anything from greater emphasis on fellowship in the structure of the group to a higher degree of emphasis on social action, community building or Christian outreach.

Yes. One slogan is "Theology divides, service unites."

• A desire to reanalyze the Bible against the context with the goal of revealing a multiplicity of valid perspectives rather than a single valid interpretation

Well, there is certainly no attempt to find a "single, valid interpretation" of the Bible—or anything else.

• A continual re-examination of theology.

Yes

• A high value placed on creating communities built out of the creativity of those who are a part of each local body.

Yes; the phrase "members of each other" is characteristic.

Dpbsmith (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Introduction Paragraph

The emerging church or emergent church is a diffuse movement or "conversation" which arose in the late 20th century as a reaction to the modernism of Western Christianity. The word conversation is preferred to emphasize that there are many voices contributing to the identity of a movement that is developing, changing and difficult to define. The emerging church is concerned with the deconstruction and reconstruction of Christianity in a postmodern cultural context. Some characteristics of this reconstruction include missional living, narrative theology and "post-individualistic" ideas of community. Author and pastor Brian McLaren is considered to be a prominent spokesperson for the emergent church, but he considers himself to be merely one voice in a dynamic conversation. Proponents are predominantly found in Western Europe, North America, and the South Pacific.

I modified the introduction paragraph to the above based on information from www.emergentvillage.com and www.anewkindofchristian.com. Gold Dragon 21:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Gold Dragon - what does all this mean? I think the introductory paragraph is now less clear. What are "missional living," "narrative theology," and "post-individualistic ideas of Christianity?" I don't think these ideas belong in the introductory paragraph if their meaning isn't self-evident. Also, I don't think any one person should be highlighted in the intro. Unless McLaren is the clear leader of the movement/conversation/whatever, he doesn't belong here in the intro. Danlovejoy 04:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I have clarified missional living and narrative theology. I have also replaced post-individualistic community with Christ-centeredness as a third characteristic to highlight. I hope these characteristics help to give some clarity to boundaries of the emergent church that do not wish to be bound. Regarding the inclusion of Brian McLaren in the introductory paragraph, I believe his contributions to the emergent church and recognition by both supporters and critics warrants inclusion even if he is not a "clear leader". Eventually, I hope to help clean up the rest of the article but thought the intro would be a good place to start. Keep the suggestions coming. Gold Dragon 19:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

From what I've read, it seems that Emergents don't understand the real meaning of Modernism with regard to philosophy and culture. When they say someone is "modern," it seems to me that they mean he/she is intolerant of ambiguity and tends toward theological reductionism. This isn't really a philosophically "Modern" viewpoint at all. They stick everyone who isn't PoMo as "Modern." So I wouldn't introduce "Modernism" into this intro.

I believe modernist theology can be accurately described as tending towards theological reductionism. Intolerance of ambiguity may or may not be part of that. Gold Dragon 15:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You have made some definite improvements, and I'll go ahead and make some more. Let me know if I've gone too far. Danlovejoy 01:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

OK - Done. My goal was to leave in all the information and take out the extra words. I have not removed the reference to modernism as I need to do a lot more research on it. Comments? Danlovejoy 02:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I like it. A few comments. I think using the words diffuse and emerging to explain all the characteristics of the word "conversation" is inadequate and more words need to be spent explaining the meaning of this important word in the EC. I will try to find a better balance. I would say the phrase "believe the following principles" would be uncomfortable to those in the emergent church and "display the following characteristics" would be more acceptable. Although the whole idea of characterizing or principling is generally something the EC seeks not to be and not to have done to themselves. The EC is not just made up of emergent churches but also emergent Christians found in more traditional denominations. So I would change the phrase "Emergent Church" to "Emergent Christians" in the last sentence. Finally, while I think breaking the introductory paragraph into smaller paragraphs and points is more readable, I don't know if there is really enough information here to warrant this many breaks. I'll make some changes and throw it back in your court. Some good work Danlovejoy. Gold Dragon 15:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Gold Dragon. Remember that when writing for the web, chunking is very helpful, and there is no dearth of space. So I say break up those paragraphs and make bullets whenever possible. Fie on long paragraphs! ;-) Danlovejoy 15:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not registered, but I have a couple of comments that I hope will be useful.

1. There seems to be a 'centralist' bias in describing EC. The article says that "Brian McLaren is the most recognizable spokesperson" of EC and that people have "joined groups being led by such individuals." Is this perspective an American thing? An important aspect of "emergent" as I understand it is as a reference to the emergent decentralised behaviour in self-organising systems. People come together to form groups rather than lead them. Brian McLaren may be a significant theologian, apologist, or evangelist for EC or even a pioneer, explorer, or innovator, but I doubt that he would claim to speak for any EC community besides his own church. I can understand that you are calling it a "movement" for the benefit of non-"post" readers, but please minimise the use of modern assumptions when describing a postmodern movement.

2. You seem to have a pronounced North American POV, although I'm sure it is unintended. When your article refered to Brian McLaren, my mind said "Brian Who?" before I remembered reading an article by him. In other parts of the world modernism has not devloped to the extremes seen in North America, so North American theologians are not necessarily as relevant elsewhere. A quick google satisfied me that he is an important voice in North America, but what about Tom Wright (described as the "unwitting patron saint of an emerging theology" at opensourcetheology.net) and those mentioned 2 weeks ago by entheos in Europe and South Pacific? Many of them are well recognised names, even outside of EC. If a NPOV is difficult to obtain in the overall article, maybe there could be small sections describing EC in Europe and in the South Pacific to balance it.

ps. please feel free to make any changes required for these comment to conform to Wikipedia protocols. Also I can see help for making content pages, but not for talk pages. Where do I find this? - richard

Thanks for your suggestions, richard. BTW the reason our posts are signed with a link is because we registered and added 4 tildes (~~~~) to the end of our posts which autmoatically gets replaced with a link to our user pages and a timestamp. The Wikipedia:Tutorial_(Talk_pages) might be useful to you.

Regarding your suggestions, I agree that the comments about Brian McLaren are very NA-centric. And the word spokesperson is also one I would rather not use either. Do you have any suggestions? I will make some changes that hopefully address your concerns. Feel free to comment on them. Gold Dragon 22:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello all, I a have further streamlined (or bowlederized, depending on your POV) the intro. I hate to be contentious about this, but there were just too many words. In my experience, emergents tend to write long. And here, we need a very short, pithy intro to to concept of the emerging church. Please see my edits and comment.

Perhaps more controversial - I have also removed the reference to Brian McLaren from the intro. I just don't think he can possibly be important enough in such a diffuse global movement to merit mention in the intro. Someone want to push back on these? Blessings! Dan Lovejoy 11:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)