Talk:Emerging church/Archive 3

This archive covers the beginning of 2006 through mid-July.

References

I've just alphabetized the long list of references, only to realize that none of them are actually referenced. Would someone with these books be so kind as to actually add footnotes to the relevant passages? WestonWyse 09:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

While I would agree that the primary function of a bibliography is to credit the sources consulted in writing an article, it also has the secondary function of providing a basis for further research. On Wikipedia a bibliography can help future contributors improve the article. -Dhodges 22:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

But there is harm in listing a large number of irrelevant or marginally relevant sources. We have 22 of them here I am afraid, although maybe a couple are actually worthwhile. Perhaps the original contributor who dumped this long list of "references" can supply some justification why each merits inclusion.

Case in point. I just took the time to read the 10 Reasons Your Church Sucks reference[1] — as far as I can tell this is irrelevant rant with little connection to EC other than perhaps the author considers himself EC. Perhaps others see needle where I see nothing but straw in this haystack; please explain if so.

I'll start things rolling by deleting a few items & seeing if anyone cares or can justify why the deletion should not occur.  technopilgrim 21:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, a references section is a section of works referenced. A bibliograpy is something different and should be labelled as such. Either way, the statements in the article need references. No one wants to dredge through twenty-odd sources just to find out where a certain sentence came from. --WestonWyse 00:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I added some references from the website www.emergentvillage.org, the book The Emergent Church by Dan Kimball and the book House Church Networks by Larry Kreider. I wouldn't say they are great sources or that the explicitly defend the statements I have associated them with, but they might be a good starting point. The fear of having one authoritative voice in the emergent conversation also lends itself poorly to finding authoritative sources for statements made. Gold Dragon 20:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism needs to be fleshed out

Sorry everyone. I looked over the talk on this article but felt that it should be said: this article needs more information about criticsm against the emergent church. i know this will be a difficult task as some of us are probably emergent memembers and some are not, but as we are all christians, i think we can work on this together in a positive way so that the article reflects the issues that other branches of christianity have with the emergent church and postmodernism in general (you emergents should check out information on the idea that postmodernism (in terms of secular society) has been "ending" for the past five years or so, as well as if emergent church can be or actually is postmodern. thanks for that side note). the section of criticism links is a good start. lets see if we can get such a complete comprehesive section done for this article, as it is needed to understand the emergent church movement and those who are 20-something christians who know modern and postmodern thought and choose to work in another vein. thanks all! Dantedanti 02:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

-I think this point needs to be iterated and flags waved about it. "Evangelicals" have criticized the movement. Whom specficially? Is it only Evangelicals, or does it include Reformed/Catholic/Pentecostal thinkers as well? Can you cite? Has anyone written a critique of the Emerging Church? Can you summarize the major criticisms? It would really be helpful, honestly, in better understanding the differences in world view between the various streams of Christian theology. Grazie. --D Wilbanks 07:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This movement has been criticized by Reformed/Catholic/Pentecostal thinkers. For example, see my somewhat lengthy critique of the movement at http://www.apologeticsindex.org/290-emerging-church (I am a Pentecostal). The issues most often criticized are the movement's epistemology as well as the doctrines and ethics this postmodern epistemology lead to. This movement is well outside of the bounds of orthodoxy (even though many Evangelicals do not seem to realize this yet). The article in Wikipedia does not even begin to address these problems. -- David

Restructured towards removing cleanup tag

I have restructured the article in the hopes that it would be a step towards removal of the cleanup tag in this article. Let me know if they were effective or not.

The many references to the structure, ecclesiology and denominations found in the article have been collected into the Membership, Ecclesiology and Structure section. The many criticisms and links to critical articles and critics has been collected into the Criticisms section. The Common Values and Characteristics section requires significant editing with many duplicated concepts. There are still many requests for citations (some that I've added) that require good sources. The Criticisms section also requires significant editing and trimming of the number of articles referenced, many of which reiterate the same points. Highlighting a few well-written and prominent artilces would probably be more effective than the current list. Gold Dragon 16:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I got the intro and membership sections to a reasonably concise and useful state. It might be beneficial to provide a one or two sentence summary in the introduction about the criticisms/controversies of the emergent church since that currently makes up about half of the article. I'm going to leave the criticism sections of the article for critics of the emergent church to edit since I probably won't be able to do justice to those sections.

Next on my list is to improve the values and characteristics section. I hope to include sections about some of the major buzzwords in the emergent church movement including Conversation/Dialogue, Postmodernism, Cultural Context and Social Justice. Gold Dragon 19:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Subheadings under Criticisms

User Will3935 prefers to include the word critical/critique in subheadings of the criticism section. In the interest of conciseness, I suggest that they are duplications that are implied because they are located under the Criticisms section. Thoughts? Gold Dragon 19:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be allright if it were somehow made clear that the sections following "criticisms" were all subordinate to that heading. The headings are identical and it seems one is not subordinate to the other.

The table of contents automatically generated by Wikipedia makes headers with three equals(=) signs to be subordinate to those with two equals signs. If that isn't apparent in the resulting formatting, your issue is with how the Wikipedia engine formats subordinate headings. I would suggest bringing it up on the Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(headings) page if this is a concern. Gold Dragon 20:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Correction, the problem isn't with the Wikipedia engine but with how your browser interprets HTML protocol. The article titles are given the properties of an H1 HTML tag while headings with two equals signs are given H2 tag properties, three equals signs H3, etc. Gold Dragon 20:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm a new user just getting used to the way Wikipedia works. I made "criticisms" bold to clarify its superordinate position. Hope this is acceptable. I went through the criticle articles and deleted all but the ones I think are substantial and in some way unique. Hope this pared it down sufficiently. Colson's article is neither substantial nor unique but I did not delete it simply becasue of his prominence. If someone else wants to delete it I would concede that it is fair game. Thanks for putting up with me while I'm learning to use Wikipedia.--Will3935 02:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No prob. You have made a lot of valuable contributions to this article and I hope you continue to do so. We come from different perspectives on this topic but hopefully we can still work together to improve the quality of this article. One thing to note is that I noticed many of your edits have been external links to articles that I presume were written by you. This is frowned upon in wikipedia and listed under one of the conditions which should be avoided in the manual for style article Wikipedia:External_links. If someone else deems them worthy of inclusion in this article, that is a different story. I didn't want to remove them to discourage you, but maybe you might remove them yourself after reading that page in the manual. Also, signing your talk messages is easy using four tidle(~) characters which automatically adds a link to your Talk page and a timestamp. Enjoy Wikipedia! Gold Dragon 21:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Only one of the articles was written by me and the website involved is not owned or run by me. After reading the manual carefully I could find no way in which I violated it. I read the material on the link you provided twice and could find nothing pertinent to my article since the website is not mine."Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles written as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam" does not seem to relate to my link. If you could quote some section I missed I would be grateful (but to be honest, if I were out of order I would probably just have a friend put in a link to my article -- just a sneaky way to accomplish the same thing [just embracing non-normative postmodern ethics, brother]). I know I'm prejudiced but I think my article is good. I did considerable research for this article before writing it. I received no remuneration for the article and have no vested interest in its being read other than the clarification of important issues. I intend to provide citations for the criticisms. I may need to visit a local seminary library for specific page numbers (I have returned the books I had borrowed) and I will have to figure out how to make citations in the article (haven't figured it out yet in spite of reading manual [not very techno-saavy]). I appreciate your gracious comments in spite of your difference of opinion. I have changed my username since my old one more or less gave away my identity. I prefer anonymity, as you apparently do as well, "Gold Dragon."--Will3935 02:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I was also referring to edits you made on other pages since I noticed you linked to your article on several Wikipedia pages, not just this one. I was referring to the statement:

"3. A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." Wikipedia:External_Links

While you may not own the site, and your situation isn't explicitly mentioned in the policy pages, I believe linking to your own article is contrary to the spirit of the Wikipedia:Neutral_Point_Of_View policy which is core to the philosophy of Wikipedia. Feel free to note your article(s) in the talk pages of this article and if other neutral editors feel it is worthy of inclusion, that is fine. I'm sure you put a lot of scholarly work into making it a good article. Getting your non-neutral friends to include the article is not in line with NPOV. I would also not consider this type of activity to be related to any postmodern ethic. Of course many people violate NPOV policy on Wikipedia, but that is not justification for further violation.

If you do not remove your own articles, I will do so myself. A good alternative is to cite the sources that you used to construct your article. The Wikipedia:Citing_sources page is a good outline of what types of sources are useful to reference or quote from in articles.

My preference for anonymity is for general internet prudence since all sorts of strange folks could get upset at you and track you down if given too much information and there is always the possibility of identity theft. While I make it a point not to get into those situations, one can never be too prudent with identity protection on the internet. All of my internet identities are Gold Dragon. Gold Dragon 14:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

One more thought on the state of the article as it stands now. I recall a time when the Wikipedia article on the Emerging Church movement seemed accurate, neutral, and balanced. I was surprised to find that over time it had changed into an inaccurate piece that sounded more like public relations propaganda for the movement than it did a serious attempt at scholastic integrity. I have read a large number of emergent books, spent many hours on their websites and have been part of an online community of emergents. I have previously corresponded with some of the individuals who have contributed to this discussion page (their usernames are the same as they are on their websites). They are very nice people but they are not necessarily objective when describing their movement to outsiders. The public face they put on is often quite different than the one you will find in their books and blogs. This is understandable. Many groups which have been identified by mainstream Evangelicals as "extreme" dislike the label so they speak a different way to a neutral or hostile audience than they do to one another. While this is not surprising, it really has no place in an encyclopedia which is supposed to be objective and scholarly, and in which neither propaganda nor polemics should prevail over objectivity. While I think the article still represents some of the public posturing of emergents more than their personal teachings and thus still leans slightly toward the propaganda side, the criticism section at least allows for some balance and brings the article closer to the kind of neutral, accurate, and informative one that an encyclopedia article should be. I was impressed that through the give and take of editing in this format an improvement such as this was achievable. Finally I think there is an exclusive emphasis in the "Pioneer" section on those who participate in the movement on a practical level, while some of the theological "pioneers" (I do not believe their theology is as revolutionary and unique as they often claim even though this theology does leave the confines of mainstream Evangelicalism) of the movement such as Stanley Grenz and John Franke are ignored. This does not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia article.--Will3935 11:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the article still needs a lot of work, especially in the Criticisms section which is completely lacking in citations and full of unsupported generalizations. Regarding the list of pioneers, I believe the lists of practical pioneers is just as important as any list of theological pioneers, even though I don't see the distinction between the two since I see orthopraxy and orthodoxy as two intimately linked concepts. Encyclopedias should not exclude practical pioneers and in fact often makes greater efforts to include them since they often make a greater historical impact than theoretical/scholarly counterparts who make less involved contributions. Gold Dragon 14:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right that those involved on a practical level should be mentioned (I did not suggest they should be deleted) but the theologians of the movement (and they do have theologians) should not be completely ignored. What would you think of a book on church history that totally ignored such figures as Athanasius, Aquinas, Schleiermacher, and Barth? How about a book on 20th century Evangelicalism that made no mention of people such as Carl Henry, Harold Lindsell, D. A. Carson, or Millard Erickson? I'm only saying the theologians should not be left out altogether. If you will give me a little time I can provide the citations you need for the criticism section. As I pointed out earlier, though I do own many books on the topic, most of the books I used in researching this movement I borrowed from a seminary library and will have to visit it to get page numbers. I can provide a few citations within the next couple of days with the materials I have at home. I think you are very generous in not asking for similar citations on the generalizations made regarding the "favorable" characteristics of the emerging church movement. By the way, it sounds like you may have read McLaren. His approach to orthodoxy and orthopraxy is unique (insinuating that orthopraxy constitutes orthodoxy). All other Christian scholars believe orthodoxy should lead to orthopraxy. I would recommend you read D. A. Carson's critique of the Emerging Church movement as well as Reclaiming the Center, which Erickson edited.--Will3935 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If you feel pioneers are missing, go ahead and add them. Gold Dragon 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I added some theological pioneers to the end of the list. I would have added two or three more but the list seems in danger of getting unreasonably long. I would not quarrel with Mark Driscoll and Dallas Willard's inclusion in the list as they exhibit many emergent tendencies, but both of these have been extremely critical of certain doctrinal and moral aspects of the movement. I am not going to delete them but I do wonder if it is fair to the emerging church movement to include people who have been quite harsh (Driscoll has been especially harsh) in criticizing the movement among their "pioneers." Just a thought. Additionally, some of the "pioneers" are rather minor players and some of the sites promoted in this section are run by people who have contributed to this discussion page (these are some of the smaller players). Any objections if I delete some names to make the list more manageable in size? Also, I hate to confess I am still trying to figure out how to add a footnote (rather than a link). I'll need to learn this in order to provide citations for the criticisms section (which I agree needs a lot of work).--Will3935 21:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Grenz and Jones are excellent additions who I was also thinking of adding. I only know Franke as the writer of the forward for A Generous Orthodoxy. Never heard of Hauerwas. I have no problems with deleting some of the less prominent names on this list which I agree is way too long. Feel free to delete and if they are important enough, someone else will bring them back. Maybe we could keep a small list of more prominent names and move the rest to a separate page of "List of Emergent pioneers". That is what I did when the List of Baptists got out of hand on the Baptist page. While Driscoll has been critical of some things, I would still consider him emergent. Disagreement is expected in conversations. ;) Gold Dragon 04:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the list of criticisms into a paragraph. The list was redundant in its concepts and a little confusing. I inadvertantly deleted some of the "citation needed" notes. Sorry! If someone can guide this old fogey who is not techno saavy by the hand and show me how to add an endnote in Wikipedia I would be very grateful. The manual has not helped me, though I realize the rest of you seem to have figured it out. I will probably start with general references to books and later add specific page numbers. I still think the pioneers list is a little too long in comparison to the rest of the article and I have some ideas regarding deletions. I think Mark Driscoll, for example, would be a place to start since his criticisms of the movement have been so harsh that he could be just as easily be placed on the critics list. Since I am not an emergent I feel awkward making such deletions without a go ahead to do so.--Will3935 00:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The following pages might come in handy. Wikipedia:Citing_sources, Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style, Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles/Generic_citations Gold Dragon 04:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry -- got impatient and narrowed the list of pioneers a little. John O'Keefe, what can I say? He is the loveable "ginkworld." He started his own page in Wikipedia promoting his blog and contributed to the pioneers list which promotes his site. He and the others I deleted are not recognized by most people as significant leaders in the movement compared to people such as Brian McLaren and Tony Jones. There are countless small emergent blogs and there is not room to list them all. Nor is it fair to promote some blogs and not others of the same popularity. I went ahead and deleted Mark Driscoll for the reasons I mentioned before. Actually, I doubt emergents would want inquirers to seek for Driscoll's comments on the movement since he has recently blasted them so severely over various issues.--Will3935 02:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to Gold Dragon: Sorry you interpreted my lighthearted references to sneakiness and postmodern ethics the wrong way. Did not mean to offend you. Please forgive me. You do not know me personally and therefore did not understand that I was joking. I still have questions about my one article (not articles most of what I linked was not mine and I have sinced deleted some of these) since the NPOV policy says nothing about adding such a link and I can find nothing in the manual about it. Furthermore I have added pro-emergent links such as Leonard Sweet's e-book that are hardly neutral. I was under the impression that we were trying to let both sides be known without taking sides in the article itself. I think in an encyclopedia article all the facts should be made available to the public. The fact that there have been criticisms of this movement should not be censored and if pro emergent links are placed in the article contra links should as well. Obviously, links to pro and contra articles will lead others to unbiased material. This is what I consider to represent a true, neutral point of view and it was not being observed prior to my weighing in on this project. You say you feel I have violated NPOV but admit that there is nothing I have done that violates any policy of Wikipedia. What is our authority for deciding what is a violation? Is it the written policy or each individual's feelings? Its just one link to an article. If I could explain to you the blatant violations I found in this article (as well as other places in Wikipedia) where emergents have brazenly promoted their own blogs and ministries, even writing articles about themselves, would you be just as concerned as you seem to be about the one link I added which violates no written policy? I think we should conduct ourselves from an objective point of view and be fair and consistent. I became a Wikipedia user because that is what I expected to find.--Will3935 02:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't offended about your comment about the postmodern ethic. I just saw no relationship. I would definitely remove blogs and self promoting emergent links that are supportive of the emergent church. These are clear violations of the NPOV and external_link policies of Wikipedia. I believe most of those have been purged a while back from this article and I see that as a good thing to improve the encyclopedic value of this article. If there are others, feel free to delete. I think there are way too many external links both pro and con on this article. Gold Dragon 03:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Correction, there are way too many external links that are not being used as references. It would be great if high quality external links either pro or con to the emergent church could be used as references to cite statements made in this article instead of simply linking to them. Gold Dragon 06:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Will3935, if you do appreciate humor let me say that for an "old fogey" you write lenghty comments (oops, I forgot you old folks do talk alot). I am not very well read on this subject but I have recently become interested in it since my sister had some strange experiences at an emergent church. I can't say if her experiences are typical of the whole movement (or conversation or whatever you are supposed to call it), that is why I have started reading articles on it. I could not help but notice that Will3935 and Golden Dragon are "quarreling" over the inclusion of certain articles as links. Perhaps I can be a peacemaker here since I am just starting to study this issue. If one of you would let me know what article or articles are in dispute, maybe I can read them to see if they are good enough to be linked to a Wikipedia article. I have taken the time to read this entire dialogue and think that perhaps an outside source can help here. I am not a personal friend of either Will3935 or Golden Dragon and I have no axe to grind on the issues raised in this aricle.--Niceguy2all 03:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Our disagreement has nothing to do with the content of the article but the authorship of it. It was written by Will3935 and I wouldn't be surprised if it was an excellent, well researched article that should be included here. I skimmed the article but did not read it thoroughly. The article under discussion is "Postmodernism and the Emerging Church Movement" by David Kowalski located in the Criticisms section and also found on the Brian McLaren wikipage.

My concern is that editors should not be using Wikipedia to promote their own materials and theories (Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:No_original_research). I have no problems with him including the link on this talk page and if other neutral editors consider it significant enough to the topic to be included, then so be it. He could also make reference to the sources he used in the research of the article. Gold Dragon 14:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I read the articles in the criticisms section and I think Kowalski's is one of the most helpful. I would add it but it is already there. How about if I just recommend it stay? His glossary of emergent terms struck me as a bit condescending but I did find information in this article that was not in the other critical articles. You both seem well informed on this movement.--Niceguy2all 21:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

On behalf of Kowalski, I would say thanks for the kind sentiments and concede (on his behalf) that the satirical glossary is somewhat edgy. An emergent friend of Kowalski's took offense at it in its original form and caused him to soften it somewhat. Kowalski assures me that he never intended to promote himself. It just seems he is conceited enough to believe his article is good. By the way, Gold Dragon, If you have skimmed the article would you concur with Niceguy2all? Even if you think Kowalski's opinions are mistaken, would you believe his article is a good representation of the critical view? If so, would not the two of you be sufficient to keep this outstanding and good looking author's article linked?--Will3935 22:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

On a more serious note, I have reread the portions of the manual you (Gold Dragon) provided as a link. I still can find nothing against adding my own article as a link. I am not promoting anything or advancing any new, unverifiable theories. I am not pontificating a critical view within the article itself, just providing a link to an article in the criticisms section. I think you are mistaken in this particular case, Gold Dragon. Frankly I would remove the link myself if I could find anything regarding its inclusion forbidden in the manual. The links you provide say nothing about this. In fact they seem to indicate that such a link is permissable when it says "If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." I do not mean to boast, but if I must I will give my academic qualifications which include four theological degrees and practical qualifications which include over thirty years in the ministry. I have researched this issue at great length, so I think I find myself vindicated by this quote from the manual and can find nothing anywhere in the manual forbidding my inclusion of a link to my own article as long as it does not promote anything (such as my own ministry, website, or blog [the website publishing my article does mention a book I contributed to, but if you will contact the publisher you will find I get no royalties from its sales]),as long as it does not advance my own unverifiable theories, (there are a large number of citations in the endnotes of the article and dozens of emergent quotes within it -- sufficient, I think, to establish that its ideas are not new and unverifiable), and as long as I do not pontificate a biased POV withing the body of the article itself. When it comes to rules and regulations within which we are to conduct ourselves within a given environment (society as a whole or a smaller part such as Wikipedia) we are not at liberty to deconstruct them to mean whatever we feel it means to us. We should observe the literal meaning of the written laws or guidelines. Nevertheless, this is not a hill I am willing to die on. If you delete the link even though there is nothing in the manual forbidding my inclusion of it, even though the manual indicates my inclusion of it is permissable, and even though both you and Niceguy2all acknowledge its value, I will think you are mistaken, but I will live with it. I will not appeal it to a higher source in Wikipedia or get a friend to add the link as I sarcastically threatened to do earlier. I will leave the matter in your hands. I only expect to be treated fairly in spite of the fact that we have obvious differences of opinion regarding this movement. As I noted in an earlier post in the pioneers section below, I am having some health problems at the moment so please excuse me if I sound a little edgy in this message. I'm usually more laid back. (and yes, Niceguy2all, I realize that my posts on this discussion page are too long -- a genuine fault)--Will3935 04:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your health and I pray for God's hand of healing on you. The matter isn't really in my hands but any editors who edit this page. I wish to treat everyone fairly regardless of their position on any matter. Like I said, my contention has nothing to do with content and everything to do with authorship and Wikipedia policy which I agree does not explicitly address this situation but I believe this situation is against the spirit of Wikipedia NPOV. As I said earlier, I have no problem with you restating your points from the article in this article and citing any good sources you have that defend your points. Since you aren't stating any "new" theories in your article, I would recommend citing from the primary sources of those "old" theories. Primary sources are always preferrable in citations.

Regarding the label of "expert" that was addressed in the NPOV article, I mean no offense but unless you have spent your degrees and years of ministry studying, writing about and commenting on the emergent church, your degrees and ministry years do not make you an expert on the emergent church. You may be an expert in whatever ministry you have studied or work for and may be able to apply that label to Wikipedia articles related to your area of expertise. I consider myself to be a novice on the field of the emergent church but I simply try to contribute what I can with good research and editing skills, but no expert knowledge.

Regarding inclusion of your article, I had a good chuckle with your humourous post above and I don't want to remove your article because you seem like such a nice fellow. But objective editors should not let their emotions cloud their judgment. Niceguy2all's review your article was helpful but did not address my concerns about authorship and NPOV. So I still plan to remove your article on that basis as well as the basis that you are not a prominent critic of the emergent church. Not to dismiss your quality work, research and analysis, but simply an acknowledgement that high quality encyclopedic sources should also be prominent ones, which your article may be one day but currently is not.

Additionally, the site that your article is hosted on has this to say about its own neutrality.

"You'll notice that we're not neutral. However, we do our best to balance our personal opinions with links to pro-, contra-, and neutral perspectives." Apologetics Index : About

It also does not have a review process for admittance of articles besides agreement with the views of the couple who runs the site. These are not characteristics of quality external links found in the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources guideline. I hope I am dealing with you fairly and am not being biased against you because of any differences we have in opinion. If other editors disagree with me, they can always bring it back. That is the beauty (or curse) of Wikipedia :). Gold Dragon 13:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the manual. I think we should observe what it actually says, but I will live with your deconstruction of it. By the way, do the many emergent blogs linked to the article meet the reliable sources guidelines as you interpret them? Do these blogs that emergents have linked (and some of those bloggers have written on this discussion page) represent NPOV? Of course not. We would not expect pro or contra links to be neutral. The NPOV policy seems specifically designed to keep the overall tenor of the article neutral, preventing biased pontification within the text itself, not prevent the linking of a non-neutral article. I must admit I do find this double standard and non-literal interpretation of the manual frustrating. As far as peer review I personally went far beyond the requirements of Apologetics Index. I submitted the article to several ministers (one pro-emergent, two neutral, and two who feel about the same as I) and to two seminary professors. I received replies from Dr. James Railey (systematic theology and ethics at Assemblies of God Theological Seminary) and Dr. James Hernando (New Testament and hermeneutics at the same seminary) both of whom said it was excellent. This school is not, as an institution, opposed to the movement. Grenz delivered a week long seminar at this seminary before his untimely death and McLaren has served as an adjunct professor for a summer course at the school. The email addresses of the professors are available at the school's website. I also received valuable input from a friend who is a seminary graduate working on his doctorate in American history as well as from another individual who was once on staff at an emergent church who offered me many practical insights into the movement and who thought highly of the article. I did all of this before submitting the article to Anton Hein. Your standards for peer review must be quite high. I could make other points but I don't feel well,I don't think it is worth fighting about, and I already regret my harsh tone. Please excuse a sick, frustrated man for his rudeness--Will3935 13:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

After considering the matter I think the proper thing is for me do delete the link -- which I have. I'm afraid I can't appear impartial in this debate and my stubborness on it is getting too time consuming for both of us Gold Dragon. I also must concede that you are probably nearer right on the issue of my not being an "expert." I was interpreting the word to mean one who has sufficient expertise to address a topic, while reflection has caused me to see your understanding of the word probably better fits wikipedia's original intent.--Will3935 18:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, not as an argument for the inclusion a link to my article, but in defense of Apologetics Index -- it is a very respected site (it is, for example, the one counter-cult ministry the Walter Martin site links to [since Martin's widow had a falling out with CRI (as many others have)]) and is used as an authoritative source on pertinent issues elsewhere in Wikipedia. If you take some time to go through it you will see why the site is so respected.--Will3935 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be up to Gold Dragon. I am not disputing any links. By the way, Gold Dragon, Hauerwas is admittedly an interesting addition to the pioneers section. He has, however, heavily influenced many emergent thinkers with regard to narrative theology and community, and he is a prominent theologian as well as something of an iconoclastic pioneer. If someone deletes his entry I will not dispute it though I still will think of him as a pioneer in relation to this movement.--Will3935 05:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there some way to clarify the definition of emergent "authenticity?" The definition which says something about emergents wanting real rather than scripted experiences sounds like something most people seek. What is distinctive about emergent authenticity? If it is just wanting real experiences why is it more noteworthy than their wanting to meet in groups or sing songs? I'm sure emergents eat food too, but is that something distinctive about them? I don't mean to say that I know there is nothing unique about emergent authenticity. I'm only saying the definition doesn't do anything for me as I am trying to learn about this movement.--Niceguy2all 02:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The term is important to emergents, but you are right, the article does not adequately explain their use of the word.--Will3935 14:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

A related question: What exactly does "A belief in the journey of faith, both as individual and community" mean to emergents that it does not to other Christians?--Niceguy2all 21:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is another: "Christ-likeness -- While not neglecting the study of Scripture or the love of the church, Christians focus their lives on the worship and emulation of the person of Jesus Christ." The way this is worded it does not sound like it belongs in article specifically about the emerging church movement. It sounds like it belongs in an article about Christianity as a whole. What can we do to narrow this to something unique about the particular movement this article is about?--Will3935 02:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

NiceGuy2all has touched on something important to the article. As I think about it I am persuaded the section about Christ-likeness should be deleted if it cannot refer to something uniqe or distinctive about EC. If we list all of the traits that EC holds in common with all Christians it would cease to be an article about EC. I don't doubt emergents seek Christ-likeness, but can anyone identify any segment of or movement within Christianity that does not state Christ-likeness as a goal? I can't think of any. One or two of the movements I can think of have a very different idea of Christ-likeness, but still they claim to want to be like him. How about changing it to something like "Emergents see Christ-likeness as......" or "Emergents seek Christ-likeness in doing......." As it stands, it is inadequate to explain what defines this movement. Similarly, there needs to be something added to the definition of "authentic." --Will3935 07:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to add the following article to the list of critical articles feel free to do so -- http://www.apologeticsindex.org/290-emerging-church--Will3935 18:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Will, I don't feel qualified at this time to link an article on this subject.--Niceguy2all 03:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry. As I have said before, I am an old fogey who is not techno-saavy. I have tried to add an endnote and failed. The links Gold Dragon provided to the manual should have helped me and I'm sure they have helped others but I don't know what I am doing. If someone does not explain it to me (rather than just providing links that aren't helpful to me)I may try just posting the information here and hoping someone else will make it into an endnote. If they do not, I fear much of the criticisms section will be left without citations and eventually be deleted. I really do have citations ready, and as my health allows I am ready to put them in. Someone please help.--Will3935 07:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)