Talk:Emerging church/Archive 7

Slippery Slope Ahead?

I do not intend to delete it and its presence does not bother me, but zoecarnate's inclusion under "articles and resources" could eventually cause problems. Technically, this is a web directory and thus its inclusion violates Wikipedia policy. I'm willing to look the other way (especially given its particular nature -- I think its a helpful tool for those studying the movement).

This is Zoecarnate 16:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Zoecarnate, the user behind said website. I understand what you mean about zoecarnate.com's inclusion leading to a deluge of other potential posters. I am willing to abide by the decisions of the community but I think zoecarnate.com warrants inclusion because: a.) This really isn't a "vanity" site I put in here for kicks. It's an honest-to-goodness hand-edited directory of 5500+ emerging church resources from across the emerging spectrum. I don't cherry-pick based on my own theological commitments; it is as comprehensive as it can possibly be--and thus, valuable to any Wikipedia reader for further research. I understand its technical violation but I think (to paraphrase this Jesus fellow whom some of us here are into) "the rule is made for our benefit, not us for the rule." In any event, I put zoecarnate's reference in where I thought it was appropriate in the text of the article, rather than creating a seperate "further web resources" section as has been done in the past. Perhaps this will discourage the addition of sites by every Tom, Dick and Harry? Especially since I probably link them already.

What has always happened in the past, however, is that once bloggers see those kinds of sites listed they begin to list their blogs and their friends' blogs in this section of the article. Eventually, the anti-EC crowd thinks its unfair that only pro-EC blogs are listed and then they start listing their own in the article (we once created separate sections for pro-ec blogs and critical blogs before having to delete all of them per Wikipedia policy). Once you allow one exception you have negated the whole rule (I experienced this phenomenon during my days as a teacher)and eventually things get out of hand. As I said, I like zoecarnate's inclusion in the article but we may be headed toward a slippery slope.Will3935 15:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems weird to me that all the "Further Reading" is critical. Shouldn't there be a mix of positive and negative resources for "Further Reading"?--Andyrowell94 04:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Your point is quite valid even if not 100% accurate. Many of the articles listed are pro-ec. Nevertheless, there are more anti-ec articles listed and you are quite right that no pro-ec books are listed. I would suggest we discuss here which pro-ec books to list. We would want it to be balanced, having books say from McLaren on one extreme and Driscoll on the other. I think I could put together a pretty good list. I may do so soon and offer it as a suggestion here. I also think that doing so would help the ec editors feel the article was more even handed. Thanks for your input! By the way, thanks for your edits. The article has been plagued with misspellings of the sort you cought and I agree that the "4 1/2 points" should have been deleted as it was not relevant to the article and might have diverted it off topic.Will3935 09:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark Driscoll

OK, here we go again. Mark Driscoll has been on the prominent pro-ec list, deleted, put back, and deleted again (by a pro-ec person who did not like his criticisms of McLaren and company). Now someone has put him on the prominent critics list. Interestingly, he has recently spoken at a symposium along with David Wells and D. A. Carson and he does call "the emergent stream" "the new liberalism," but he still claims to be a part of the ec movement, thus he really does not belong on the prominent critics list. I think he belongs on the prominent ec figures list. We need to decide what to do with him and stick to our guns. All these people who flit in and out of the article without ever saying a word on this page are making things frustrating.Will3935 18:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Some anonymous editor came up with a good solution, or so it seems to me. Thanks, whoever you are.Will3935 23:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I edited Driscoll's bio a bit. He is not a "reformed pastor". His church is not a Reformed Church. He has stated that he is a 4.5 point calvinist. Thenext 23:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

thenext, mark would also say he was a reformed pastor - in fact, acts29 is a "reformed" movement. one can place anyone where they desire - but the question would be does mark see himself as "pro-emerging?" ginkworld 00:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

New Additions

I added some pro-ec books and articles as references at the bottom of the article. I hope this gets us close to feeling the article is even handed.Will3935 18:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Will, your'e too kind. I added a couple of pro emergent articles with expletives in the titles. If they are ashamed of their own articles they should not publish them. You noted that Sweet told emergents to speak out of both sides of their mouth. Let's see how long the emergents let these titles stay on the list. I suspect they don't have the integrity to let the world see the real them.Loudguy 19:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough Loudguy. In the interest of working toward a consensus, I would suggest our emergent editors take a look at the following article by Stanley Hauerwas to see if you might want to link it. Hauerwas is a very influential forerunner of ec and his article is highly articulate. I think its the best article I have read that advances emerging church views. http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/search/display-page.asp?Path=/jul1985/v42-2-article3.htm Will3935 22:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Jok: I added one of your articles as a reference. Hope that helps to make ammends for my admittedly argumentative spirit. I did not want to add the Hauerwas article myself because I find that many emergents are not familiar with his work (although he is a very prominent theologian who heavily influenced ec.) You might want to check out the article mentioned above to see if you want to add it. Even when I disagree with Hauerwas I admire how articulately he presents his opinions.Will3935 03:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

will: thanks, and i did get your email and wiil be reading the paper sent. i like hauerwas, ever since i read "peaceable kindom" when i was at drew theological seminary - he is a great guy with a great deal to offer. ginkworld 00:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow!! One day and we have 25 pro-ec books listed! If you compare this to other Wikipedia articles you will see that we are in danger of going way overboard with this. One thought -- I added Earl Creps bibliography in the pro-ec resources and I think all observers think this is the most comprehensive list of ec books, articles, videos, and mp3's one can find anywhere. Only thing I would add is that if you do add a resource, let it be one that is truly significant to the movement (like jok is -- sorry Jok if my comment awhile back seemed as though I considered you insignificant -- at the time I was trying to keep the prominent figures list to a few "Giant" figures -- hey, I know you really are a big shot). If we are not careful we will have to pare down the pro ec books list if it gets wildly out of hand and then feelings will get hurt. I don't see a need for a seperate article on ec books and resources since it is nearly impossible to improve on Creps' bibliography which is now listed on this article.Will3935 01:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I added the books, it concerned me that there were lots more anti than there were books which painted a picture of the EC... my criteria was three fold... books which are foundational (e.g. Bosch - I thought about adding Donovan but felt that though it was foundational in some ways it was not specific enough) - books which are 'core' texts and books which describe the EC conversation at present - I guess the later will be a case for continual updating _ I also wanted to give a global spread (e.g. not just 'Emergent' linked books) My other though was better to start somewhere... especially as people are using the site now, and it seemed to be unhelpful not to provide them with further reading. Mark Berry

Suggestion

It seems to me that the article does ignore the one thing I have long valued from emergent input (yes, I really am listening to you guys). The Republicans have always felt that they have conservative Evangelicals in their hip pocket (largely due to the abortion issue [and yes I am pro-life]). I appreciate emergent boldness that calls us to take a second look the political landscape. I won't go in to my personal dissappointments with the current administration but I have some strong feelings that are taboo to voice in conservative Evangelical circles where we are told to keep praying for our "good Christian president." I highly reccomend Michael Horton's book Beyond Culture Wars. Horton is a conservative Evangelical and I admire his courage and integrity to write such a book. Perhaps you guys could add a word or two along these lines somewhere in the article. If anyone tries to delete them I'll have your back.Will3935 20:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I would wonder whether there should be a general statement on the focus within the emerging church of Orthopraxis over Orthodoxy and how that focus lends itself to greater freedom to question traditional political assumptions (we should vote for the guy who believes in Jesus, instead of the guy who'll care for the poor) as well as the other values and characteristics mentioned in that section. 74.14.42.99 05:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

But what IS it?

I stumbled upon this article while reading about the churches of Christ and wondering how the Internet has changed some people's expressions of Christianity. But when I found this article and tried to read it, I had absolutely no idea what it was trying to say. There seems to be a lot of information here but it's very hard to read, and then it turns into a list of like 50 names and I still don't even know what the emerging church movement is! So, I guess this is a request for some kind of cleanup, reorganisation, or a better introduction to the rest of the article. --Boco XLVII 00:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think every editor working on this article will tell you its hard to produce a simple explanation of the movement in a brief article such as this. I wrote an 88 page article that is posted online and felt that it only began to scratch the surface. To complicate matters we have editors who are working on this article who represents different points of view regarding it. I think I could give a brief explenation of it but my version would never last the changes made by other editors. I know of no real alternative to reading articles and books both pro and con. Hopefully this article can at least get you started. One of the problems you will come across is vocabulary that is used in different ways at different times by people who participate in this movement. Also, there is diversity within the movement. Some are very liberal and antinomian while others are more conservative. I have written a briefer article I hope to get posted online soon that is a fairly quick read but uses more technical jargon. You may want to begin your research by reading some of the pro and con articles linked here. I don't think it is practical to expect someone who knows little or nothing about the movement to really understand the issues from this one little article. All we realistically hope to do (given our limitations) is provide a starting point for you. Theopedia has a short article on this movement at http://www.theopedia.com/Emerging_church but I suspect you will still be a little perplexed after reading it as well. Looking at your past contributions it seems that the sort of issues raised here (epistemology, postmodernism, theology, ecclesiology etc.) are not really your specialty, which will make your search to understand the issues involved a bit longer than you might like. Sorry I can't give you a better answer.Will3935 01:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I only joined Wikipedia in order to do game articles (and because of disagreements now and then about those, I've stopped doing any serious editing), but I've been interested in the study of religions for 5 or 10 years now. It's just a hobby and I have a lot to learn about a lot of things. But...

I don't think it is practical to expect someone who knows little or nothing about the movement to really understand the issues from this one little article.

..isn't that the goal of what we're doing here at Wikipedia, to provide a simple easy-to-understand overview of the subject, with references for further study? If someone like me who thinks the writing here is overly obtuse and even after reading it multiple times can't grasp more than "There are some Christians on the internet who dislike megachurches" from it, I think a little thought should be given on how to move the article away from the technical and at least give a brief overview of the history of the movement and at least some idea of the motivation behind it, beliefs of the aprticipants, anything other than that they don't like megachurches and they use the Internet. (also, why is about half of the content of the article a list of names with no explanation?) --Boco XLVII 07:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the Theopedia link, by the way! I skimmed over it just now and it answers a lot of questions I had, and uses much clearer language than the article here. It gives me a much better idea of what the movement is all about. --Boco XLVII 07:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok Boco I will give you my honest opinion. I believe the Theopedia article is clearer because it was not written largely by emergents. Emergents have their own jargon and their own nuances of meaning. Sometimes they obfuscate or speak circuitously to avoid shocking conservative Evangelicals regarding their beliefs and practices. If you will go to the website of Brian McLaren (a leading emergent)you will find that he often refuses to answer questions directly, pointing questioners instead to several of his books. The problem is this movement wants to be one thing while projecting an ambiguous image to avoid being castigated by conservative Evangelicals (who are already catching on anyway). Thus their rhetoric is filled with obfuscations, misleading use of language, ambiguous statements, and newly invented jargon. This article is written largely by emergents as opposed to the Theopedia article. If you want to check out a rather long but simply written primer to the movement you may want to check out the following article http://www.apologeticsindex.org/290-emerging-church I had just been trying to patch things up with the emergent editors working on this article and I fear I have offended them in my reply to you. Nevertheless, you seem quite sincere and deserve a straightforward answer. I am not suggesting you will share my disagreement with the movement's epistemology and subsequent theology. I am a conservative Evangelical and I know nothing of your religious views. You may agree with them. As I said, it just sounds to me like you deserve a straight answer.Will3935 16:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't rate the Theopedia article, for the very reason it is difficult to sumarise the 'Emerging Church', it takes a very narrow view (almost entirely focussed on McLaren, which is a flaw in much so called criticism of "EC"... Emergent Village and/or McLaren are NOT the leaders of the "EC"!) The article also focusses the critisicm of "EC" too much on Carson, there are other critics and other criticisms... that article would not survive here! I appreciate some want a narrow view in order to be able to encapsulate what has become known as 'The Emerging Church', but unfortunatley any such article will be reductionist and ultimatley create false interpretations.

Archiving discussion

I happened upon this article and wanted to ask something on the talk page, but it was over 200 kb! I was bold and archived old discussions into 6 subpages. If anyone has a problem with that, please go ahead and revert this edit and delete the subpages, but this way people can actually edit this page without their browser crashing... --Boco XLVII 00:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Theopedia article

http://www.theopedia.com/Emergent_church has a lot of materials that could be incorporated here. CyberAnth 02:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Stanley Hauerwas A Prominent Figure?

I don't see how Stanley Hauerwas should be listed here as a prominent figure in the Emergent Movement. Maybe I just don't know but I think someone should offer proof that he belongs on this list. Proof would be his own description of his involvement with or endorsement of the movement. Being hired as a speaker does not necessarily make him a prominent figure. I think his name should be taken off if proof is not found. (CLR)

You make a valid point. We have discussed his inclusion before on this page. The feeling has been that his theological influence upon EC has been profound and that his writings that advocate emergent ideas are among the most articulate to be found. Nevertheless, you are correct in observing that he has not prominently identified with EC (or anything else for that matter -- he is too iconoclastic). Personally I am comfortable with his inclusion but would understand and not object to his deletion if you and other editors feel his name should be deleted from the prominent figures list.Will3935 04:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted. IMHO it spreads misinformation. There must be a way to say SH is an influence without saying he is a prominent figure. Jesus Christ is a prominent figure within EM but is his name listed? Would it be helpful? Jurgen Moltmann is widely read but should his name appear as a prominent figure? You see what I'm saying. Delineate between prominent figures and influences. Prominent figures should be persons actively involved in propagating the movement itself. Brian McLaren, etc. User:justthischris09:39, 22 November 2006 (CLR)

Good points. Let's delete his name from the list.70.243.109.152 06:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

throughout the 21st century....

Article says:

With the paradigm shift of postmodernity taking effect throughout the 21st Century, the church came under criticism.

Come on, the 21st century is only like 5 years old. It is way too early to be using language like "taking effect throughout the 21st Century".

Come back in the 2106, and then you can say that :) --SJK 07:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comments expose a need to reword that section. I'll edit it.70.243.109.152 06:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

monastic orders?

Article says:

The Taizé Community in France also offers a neo-traditional experience of Christianity in which traditional symbols such as candles and crosses have intensified importance. Taizé, however, places relatively less emphasis on Scripture and a greater emphasis on meditation and the experiences derived from the monastic life.[2] The Emerging Church, in turn, places a greater value on Scripture and teaching through multimedia-based creative expression (and would consider religious orders an anachronism, if they considered them at all).

This seems a very odd thing to say on the light of a major conversation in Emerging Church Circles about Monastic Orders... see "Moot", Karen Wards "Church of the Apostles", Mike Frosts "smallboatbigsea" and our own (Safe Space - Telford) explorations... I would say that the very opposite of this comment is the case... Within the Emerging Church there is a very active exploration of new forms of monastic community and order!

Request to Add Len Hjalmarson to List

Len Hjalmarson should be added to the list of Prominent Figures. I know the editors are trying to limit this list, but Len has probably written more top-level on-line articles WRT faith + ecclesia + xn leadership in post-liberal culture than anyone else considered part of the EM. http://www.nextrefomation.com

20:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Nelson Costa

"Nelson Costa, author of Igreja Emergente, founder of Fundação Inocência, currently pastor of Walnut Community Church. He is considered a prominent Brazilian leader in the movement. "

This is wrong! Emergent church has little or no influence in Brazil (thanks to God). Rafael, the Gawain 00:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Critics

The list of "prominent critics" is so long, and contains so many people without their own Wiki articles, that it looks to me like simply a list of Christian preachers, prominent or obscure, who may at some point been vaguely critical of the Emerging Church, for a range of different reasons. Can someone who knows cut the list to those who are actually (a) prominent and (b) specifically prominent as critics of EC? PS Is a "see also" link to Progressive Christianity worth considering? Myopic Bookworm 13:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not nearly as long as the "prominent leaders" list and the critics are all prominent in stature as well as specific, outspoken critics of EC. I am surprised at your lack of knowledge. Perhaps you should read the books and articles these critics have written. You might learn something.

Totally agree. It's getting pretty obvious that this page is full of criticism and the critics links are just more of that. This is hardly a balanced Wikipedia article. This is unfortunate.

The list of prominent critics is just what you seek. Prominent leaders and scholars who have specifically criticized EC. It is much much shorter than the list of "prominent leaders," most of whom are not considered nearly as prominent as the critics listed here. I agree that the article has become unbalanced. The critical articles have been removed (though the pro articles were not) and the article sounds mostly like pro ec propoganda. Wikipedia is supposed to be a safe place for proponents and critics. It is a neutral site and not an emergent blog. The fact is that the movement has been widely criticized and it is poor scholarship to attempt to censor that fact in an encyclopedia. I will restore the critical articles. Censorship of criticism is a tendency usually only seen in cults. I'm surprised that emergents are so afraid of critiques.Will3935 20:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

i have stood back for a while, and have just come back to see how things are going - i have to agree that this article seems to be more of a critical view of the emerging/evolving conversation and less informative of what the conversation is about. some of the editors for this article also edit other articles dealing with christianity, and none of them have a "critics" section and none of them start out with the "The 'what ever' is a controversial...". in my world, evangelism is controversial and has a ton of holes in it - but i would never be allowed to add such to the article on the evangelical church - while i agree with the idea of the article and i have in the past questioned some of the additions - the funny thing is, for those of us in the emerging/evolving conversation we do not see this as controversial, we see it as real - for us, it is a reality. the only people who see it as controversial are those who are outside the conversation. ginkworld, 2.13.2007

Check out the Scot McKnight articles linked to ours. He's an emergent and he calls the movement the most controversial today. One would have to be uninformed to not realize this.Will3935 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back Jok! First, "many" in the sentence you edited should be followed by a specific referent like "participants." Second, we have been editing style, punctuation, spelling, and grammar. I find that this article becomes more accesible to readers when it is written in regular English than in the insider jargon I refer to as "emergentese." Third, you certainly have a right to your opinion and your input is welcome. Fourth, your statement that EC is only controversial to outsiders is self-evident and obvious. Any controversial movement is only controversial to those outside of it. Insiders never consider their own movements controversial, they just think of themselves as right. Finally, you echo the fear of critiques that I have so often found among emergents. The fact is that EC is controversial by any objective (yes, I know postmoderns dislike that word) standard. To censor such a fact from an encyclopedia article reduces the article to a piece of cultic propoganda. What we are trying to achieve at Wikipedia is an article that preserves NPOV. I know you have heard me say it before, but Wikipedia is neutral encyclopedia and not an emergent blog. And by the way, it sounds like you have not done much reading in Wikipedia. Many articles herein discuss criticisms that have been leveled at the people or movements the article is about. Perhaps in love we should respect each other's right to disagree with our particular view and allow both proponents and critics opinions regarding EC to be described from an NPOV without censoring either.Will3935 06:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just thinking...you may have a point about the use of the word "controversial" on line one. I would not be opposed to its deletion. What other specifics do you think we should change? I think we can come to a compromise that neither of us is happy with but both of us can tolerate. Let's just keep the grammar and style in line. A poorly written article undermines its own credibility. I hope you take no offense at my acting like an expert on these things. I was a high school English teacher for a while and I do think I bring some skills in this area to the article that all of us want to be well written.Will3935 06:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, check out the first line of the Wikipedia article on postmodernism. I don't know who wrote it but it is factual, which is what an encyclopedia is supposed to be.

After reading McKnight I think it is unscholarly to censor this fact.Will3935

By the way, I still look forward to receiving your critique of the article I sent you. I won't think you are mean for disagreeing with me (if you do). If you lost my email address, let me know on this page.Will3935 06:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I left a good, scholarly comment on your user page.Will3935 00:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

To New Editors

I notice that two new emergent editors coincidentaly made their first edits on the same day. Welcome to Wikipedia. I highly reccomend you read the Wikipedia handbook and strongly suggest you discuss changes in substance here first. Corrections in spelling, grammar, punctuation, and style are most welcome without prior discussion but the kind of changes you made require prior discussion. We appreciate your input though and look forward to hearing from you on this page.Will3935 20:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop the Madness

I'm sorry if this sounds insulting to whoever is contributing anonymously, but your writing is worse than most of the high school students I taught when I was an English teacher. This is supposed to be a SCHOLARLY encyclopedia article, not a sloppy, poorly written blog entry. Mr. Anonymous, I would kindly suggest that your poorly written edits only undermine any points you wish to make since such juvenile writing undermines the credibility of the article as a whole, and especially your poorly written edits in particular. Others and I have been trying to untangle the vast jungle of poor grammar and style that has been omnipresent in this article up to now. I think it is time we made this article an example of excellence. Your input is most welcome but your poor writing is not. I suggest you tell us on this page what it is you wish the article to say that it does not currently say and the other editors can write it for you. We were just getting on top of the poor grammar and style and I don't think we should go back to having an atrociously written piece. Mr. anonymous, I suspect you are the one who placed the juvenile prank regarding Ken Silva in the piece. If you don't respect Wikipedia as a scholarly tool please move on, respecting our right to treat it properly. Additionally, this is an important topic to some of us on both the pro and con sides and it deserves to be treated with respect. Whoever you are you apparently do not realize how poor your writing is and you do not appreciate that others take Wikipedia seriously. Please stop interfering with our efforts to create something respectable.Will3935 06:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Prominent Critics

I know we were trying to keep this list to a minimum but the "prominent figures" list has grown excessively long and includes several marginal characters. It thus seems wrong that "prominent critics" such as John MacArthur who are truly prominent are excluded from the list. If we let one list grow, then we should let both.Loudguy 23:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

New material

The original article was focused on how the movement was postmodern, but I found plenty of discussion on how this postmodernist factor is not as big as it is portrayed in this article. Postmodernism may be the most controversial topic related to the Emerging Church Movement, but in the interest of non-bias, I think this page should reflect that postmodernism in the emerging church movement is a part, not all of the discussion.

I argue that since this "emerging church movement" is "from evangelical churches", arguments that appoint exclusively postmodern tendencies to this movement should be called an "emerging universalist movement" instead. I strongly disagree that this 'emerging church movement' is equivalent to an 'emerging postmodern church movement' or an 'emerging universalist movement', and feel the article should reflect that the emerging church is struggling to minister in postmodernism, but is not intrinsically postmodern itself.

by Jwiley80 04:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC), edited 11:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

JWiley, you'll have to bear with me. I tend to be rather straightforward as any of the other editors working on this article can testify. I have four college degrees (one in English and three in theology (nearly all "A"s). I have read dozens upon dozens of books on postmodernism and the emerging church movement from a variety of perspectives. I have spent countless hours on emergent blogs dialoging with emergents. I have written several articles on the topic and am now writing a book that a publisher has requested I write for them. I do not say these things to boast but to illustrate the kind of problem we have here. I can't understand a word you are saying in your above entry and your edits are not much better. This is not because I am stupid or uneducated. I have never had trouble understanding emergent literature or communications before. This is a first. I am sure your emergent friends "understand" you and are too generous to point out your weakness in communication. I could give many examples from your edits but I'll let one suffice for now -- "Ecclesiology -- The Church Undefined" makes no sense at all. It sounds as though you have no idea what ecclesiology is. To put things as harshly as I must, you remind me of those "American Idol" contestants who think they can sing like birds but only embarass themselves when they try to do so before others. On the other hand, I do suspect that some fellow editor (or a friend of mine) is playing a joke on me and laughing themselves silly as I write this (if that's true -- good one). I examined your edits on other articles and they seemed to be mostly more minor edits than those you attempted here. Nevertheless,I did spot some bad grammar and punctuation in those basic edits (too busy to fix them but would be happy to discuss them with you0. I think this format is a blessing in disguise for you since you are able to shelter yourself in its anonymity. I know you are probably angry with me but I encourage you to take lenghty, unedited examples of your writing to a college English professor for evaluation. Some classes would definitely help. I'm really sorry to come off this way, but I think you should consider learning to write much better before you seek to contribute to an encyclopedia. If you would like to have some unbiased Wikipedians (who share neither of our convictions or philosophies) moderate this issue I am sure we can arrange for that. I am sure there are many good ways you can serve God and contribute to His kingdom according to your talents, which I am sure I do not possess. God bless you as you serve Him.Will3935 05:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Will3935, I've modified my original comment for clarity. I appreciate your careful consideration of my grammatical abilities - and yes I admit to having difficulty being clear here. I also appreciate your honesty in criticism. Here, though, I tried to get across a very distinct point, one I believe mattered to the discussion. You can see that I spent many hours doing it. I got sidetracked as well with a variety of what I considered well thought out edits, and I feel that may have been my downfall here. I understand that I may have annoyed you with an overwhelming change to a page that you carefully monitor, but what bothers me about your changes is that you have reverted back to the old postmodern focused format while that was my main argument, and only argued that your reasoning was based upon the poor quality of my writing. I will say again that I copied much of the writing - with permission. Please see the reference document: http://www.ctlibrary.com/40534

On the "Ecclesiology: the church undefined" portion, by the way, I was trying to say that the emerging church is actually trying to redefine church by making church undefined. I thought I was making a relevant point, but I can see that that discussion will need to be embedded in the text - and it is not there in as clear a way as I thought right now. I see that this caveat annoyed you a bit... sorry about that.

While I did make some very directional formatting decisions, I feel the point I am trying to get across is what I am arguing for at the top of this comment (which I've edited). I apologize for my lack of careful clarity and for the sheer volume of change I brought to this important discussion, but please be patient with me as I carefully (and slowly) reintroduce changes I believe are necessary.

And no, I'm not here as a joke. Jwiley80 11:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jwiley for not getting mad at me. I am not just a bully when I have the luxury of anonymity, I tend to be one at other times as well. I'm not proud of that. I WELCOME your input on matters of substance. Perhaps the biggest problem we have had with this article is in cleaning up the atrocious spelling, grammar, punctuation, and style various zealous editors have woven into the article. My concerns about grammar and style are sincere. All of the English teachers I have known (I was one for a while) are rather anal about these things. Furthermore, an encyclopedia should exhibit the best of English usage. Wikipedia desires this. Poor grammar and style undermine the credibility of the article. Finally, it seems that most of the "emerging" contributors to the article have trouble realizing that the uninitiated can not make sense of their insider jargon. Many of my edits say something like "changed emergentese to English." These are the only reasons for my revert. I do not wish to censor emergent input but at the same time I do not wish to compromise the quality of the article. I am interested in what you are saying and I will read the article by Scot (I'll get to it soon). He is usually quite articulate and he seems to be sincere in his desire to be fair to all. Thanks again for not getting mad at me.Will3935 21:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. It will take some doing to convince me that EC is not postmodern. John O' Keefe, who is an emergent editor (Or as he would probably insist, "an emerging editor") contributing from his experience (though, in spite of his Masters degree from Drew, he has problems with grammar and style [love you John but it's true]. Perhaps one day I'll figure out why so many emergents have this problem in spite of the fact that many EC leaders are quite articulate)(this sentence, with all of its many digressions and parentheses, is a good example of horrendous style [and now spellingg] -- just wait till you get lost in its conclusion), used to moderate an online community (that I was part of) called "Postmodern Theology" (it still exists, he's just changed the name)(call the style police to arrest me for writing this sentence!). Emergent authors have long insisted that EC is a response to pomo. I am convinced that the bottom line of this response is the EC adoption of postmodern epistemology (antifoundational rejection of certainty) that leads to a rejection of dogmatism that results in the religous pluralism of the movement as a whole. Without this postmodern epistemology EC is nothing more than an adaptation of methodology (something the Church has always done through the centuries without it being considered a radically new movement [or "conversation"]). If Scot is trying to say that EC is not itself postmodern, I strongly disagree with him as would most commentators both in and out of the movement. Thus, his opinion would represent a minority view that could be described in the article but it should not be seen as a definitive evaluation of EC as a whole. I know that Scot represents the more conservative wing of EC and this may be the motivation behind his questionable thinking (if that is indeed his point in the article which I have yet to read). Scot's usually a pretty sharp guy, so I would be quite surprised at such an anomaly in his thinking. It would reveal something of a desparate (but almost absurd) attempt to distance himself from the movement's bottom line (postmodern epistemology) while still, in some sense, identifying with the movement. Mark Driscoll has tried this and I don't think it has worked well for him. I think people like Mark and Scot should just identify with mainstream Christianity and offer what insights they can regarding how methodology can be changed to better reach postmoderns without being enslaved to postmodern thinking. I realize that there are many aspects of emergents' lives (such as sleep, breakfast, walking etc.)that are not premodern, modern, or postmodern. There can be no postmodern boiled egg. Nevertheless, such acultural phenomenon are not definitive of emergent so they are irrelevent to any analysis of them. Communists may drink the same water as capitalists, for example, but this commonality is irrelevant to any analysis. The fact that emergents do some things that are acultural is completely irrelevant to intelligent analysis since the essence of emergent is postmodern epistemology and its consequences. Scot may not embrace all of the consequences that others do but to the extent that he does not he is inconsistent with his essential, bottom line as an emergent. Scot seems like a pretty sharp good old boy but that does not put his statements above analysis.

Will3935 01:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Time to Put in Some Pictures

If anyone has photos of emergent worship or meetings to insert and is technosavvy enough to do so in Wikipedia (where such things seem to be more difficult) I believe this would really spice up this drab-looking, text-only article. Just inserting a photo of one leader would be a bad idea and would not reflect the spirit of emergent.Will3935 07:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have found a few pictures on the web. Some of the images I found may be copyrighted but see the following locations for these images: http://straphanger.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/community-780527.jpg

http://www.sense-datum.org/tim/images/pict2783_sm.jpg

http://www.hobodobe.com/Media/Media1/web_Candle%20Holder%20-%20Blue.jpg

http://thevoiz.typepad.com/weblog/emerging_church (several good ones here)

Seiously -- the article needs some sprucing up. I don't think we are done until it looks better through the addition of some artwork or photos that are in the public domain. I suspect that some of you emergent bloggers have better images than the ones I have linked to above.Will3935 05:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

SORRY Although I love to play around with artwork and photos in files I put together for personal or church use, I am new to doing so in Wikipedia. There are rules regarding what types of art and photos that can be imported, and though I have not tried to import any images, some of you know I am an old fogey who is not very technosaavy. Anyway...it seems that the images in the links I pasted in may violate Wikipedia's policies. I am not sure. I'm so confused......Will3935 06:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the best option is for someone to take photos with their own digital camera of emerging church activity and paste it in the article. Anyone game?Niceguy2all 08:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Emerging churches "look" so varied and often so similar to traditional churches. I would wonder whether a picture of slides, or whiteboards, or diagrams r/t ecm makes more sense. These three are all CC-A

http://www.flickr.com/photos/justinbaeder/59912617/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/justinbaeder/59912612/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/justinbaeder/59912587/ 74.14.42.99 06:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Reformat Ideas Posted in Emerging church movement sandbox

Previously I have provided several large format changes, but they were reverted and not much discussion has taken place on the reformat since. I have created the Emerging church movement sandbox for a discussion on these format changes. PLEASE SEE THE DISCUSSION as well as compare the 'diff's on the sandbox article's history page to see the suggested changes. The current existing Emerging church movement article sections in question are posted in the history for easy comparison. Jwiley80 18:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Good to have you on our discussion page. I don't know whether to wave hello or goodbye with your retiring to your own sandbox. The way we editors from a variety of perspectives have gradually built this article sometimes one word at a time over a long period is through discussion. If you have ideas that you believe would help make the article better the way to do this is to make suggestions one at a time (the "one at a time" part is key) on the suggestion page and we will discuss them until we arrive at a consensus. Your approach as a new kid on the block who wants to make sweeping changes and move everything over to your sandbox is just a bit offputting. When you are ready to come home to our humble discussion we will talk.Loudguy 01:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Jwiley, you may want to check out Artisan949's comments at the top of this discussion page. Loudguy,I am glad you said the discussion was humble. I don't think those of us who contribute to it always seem humble! Niceguy2all 08:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Postmodern Spirituality

It seems to me the article says very little about the postmodern spirituality found in the movement. I realize a lot of unprofitable noise has been generated by the more extreme "discernmentalists" but the prominence of this aspect of the movement in popular discussion is not reflected in this article. I do understand that a fair and balanced discussion of this topic within the article would probably draw fire from both sides. Perhaps someone has some thoughts on this.Niceguy2all 07:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right on all counts. Perhaps someone else has the energy to open this can of worms. Not me right now.Will3935 08:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a block quote by J. P. Moreland that I believe represents the most articulate expression of the critics' view. If someone has an objection let's discuss it.Will3935 08:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Parenthetical Reference

My techno-ignorance is showing again. Since I am an ignoramous and no one (!) has been kind enough to take me by the hand and show me exactly how to put a proper citation in a Wikipedia article (yes, I have read the manual), I placed a parenthetical reference after the block quote I added. Maybe someday, somebody will be merciful enough to change all of the article's paranthetical references to good, Wikipedia citations.Will3935 11:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I Propose Another Block Quote

To the end of the criticisms section I added a block quote by J. P. Moreland which I believe articulately summarizes the concerns of critics. The only problem is that now, without a corresponding block quote at the end of the "favorable" section, the article loses symmetry and NPOV. I propose that the best favorable summation of emergent goals be put into a block quote at the end of the "pro" section. If no one offers a suggestion I will provide one.Will3935 11:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I got impatient and added two "pro' quotes. Past experience tells me that these will soon be joined by a few dozen others. This we cannot allow but if others want to propose alternative quotes to replace these, that is, of course, a possibility.Will3935 16:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Lumpers and splitters

Check out the article I linked under the "see also" section. I think understanding this concept may help to resolve some of your issues.Thinkenstein 09:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Move

Tried to move "Emerging Church Movement" back to "Emerging church movement." I don't like the use of lower case in the title but this seems to be the norm in Wikipedia. The attempted move back was not successful. Maybe someone else will succeed where I failed.Will3935 23:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the editor who did this.Will3935 06:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Change to "Membership" Section

One of the aspects of the emerging church movement is that there are adherents within traditional denominations that have formed separate emerging churches within their denomination while other adherents continue to go to non-emerging churches within traditional denominations. At a conference held at Tyndale Seminary in Toronto April 8, 2006, Brian McLaren encouraged emerging church adherents to stay in their traditional churches and their traditional denominations if at all possible, and to only leave to form "emerging churches" if compelled by their current churches.

I am not sure how to add this information, but the idea that the emerging church movement is more a movement of individuals than a movement of "churches" is a unique facet of this movement.

Unforunately, I do not have a reference for this other than notes I took at the conference. Can this information still be included? 74.14.42.99 04:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.14.42.99 (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Welcome to our discussion! Adding the anecdote from McLaren's speaking engagement would likely arouse much protest from our emergent editors. They have long insisted that McLaren should not be given as much of a spotlight as he seems to always gets in discussions of EC. Furthermore, I do believe the article does include references to EC's influence in traditional denominations. If you don't think such references are sufficient, perhaps you could add a better one or beef up the existing ones. Also, your credibility on this discussion page will be greatly enhanced if you get a username and sign in with it each time you offer an edit or dialog with us on this discussion page. Unfortunately this discussion has had its share of contributors whose identities were questionable. No need for you to know details about that now (although I would be happy to explain this as well as Wikipedia policy to you). Just know that you are welcome here!Will3935 06:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Did some checking on your question about citing your notes from MacLaren's speaking engagement. I'm afraid your notes are considered an unverifiable source, and thus not acceptable in Wikipedia.Will3935 00:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Changes to the Values and Characteristics Section

Narrative Theology: While I can say I have read resources on ecm that are critical of systematic theology, I would like a citation that exegesis is not a part of ecm theology. Textual analysis is perhaps different in ecm theological writings (a deeper investigation into the original historical context in order to understand the present relevance), but if "Critical explanation or analysis, especially of a text." is the answers.com definition of exegesis, I would say that it is present in ecm theological texts/sermons/etc.

Postmodern Biblical Interpretation: I would encourage a change from "admit a plurality of interpretations of Scripture" to "question the perpescuity (or clarity or intelligibility) of Scripture" (Davis, Ellen F.; Hays, Richard B. (2004-04-20), "Learning to Read the Bible Again", The Christian Century, The Christian Century Foundation: 23–24, retrieved 2007-02-27 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link))

I've not made these changes myself, because I know that there's been a long history of discussion on this article, and I don't want to step into a hornets nest if these changes have already been suggested. If I have not heard any negative responses about these suggestions in the next week or so, I will probably make the change. I would like this to be a consensus, though, if possible. 74.14.42.99 05:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I must say you seem very knowledgeable and bold for a brand new editor. I reccomend you take things just a little slowly until you get the hang of how things are done here at Wikipedia. To offer such substantial changes in this article which has a very long history of edits that have been hammared out in the fire of straightforward debate is quite bold indeed. I think all of us who work on the article enjoy straightforward exchange (those who don't like it have left us). It would help us though if we can get to know you, and you will earn more respect as you pay your dues, listening, discussing, and first offering small edits. I don't mean to suggest you are not a knowledgeable and competent person. We just don't know you yet.

As to your comments: Emergents have been critical of exegesis as it has been understood by Christians for quite some time. If you would like a citation to this effect you can always place a request for such in the body of the text. We will likely be too lazy to add such a citation if someone doesn't ask for it. If you would like to substantially change the content there, you would of course be challenged to produce your own sources by the other editors.

As to questioning perspicuity vs. admitting a plurality of interpretations: This is a false antithesis. These two concepts are complementary not mutually exclusive. Thus, if you wish to comment about the perspicuity of Scripture being challenged, it seems to this editor that the academically responsible thing to do would be to show how the admission of a plurality of interpretations resulted from the questioning of Scripture's perspicuity. Such a comment would be, in my opinion, a very good addition to this article and I am completely in favor of it.

Put references to perspicuity in the article. Feel free to add your reference.Will3935 05:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As to "considered inflammatory": This is an example of what is called weasel words in Wikipedia (you'll get to know Wikipedia policy better as you read the manual -- we all had to learn). Nevertheless I did like your wording better than the existing wording.

I have since changed my mind about liking the wording.Will3935 23:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

N. T. Wright was a great addition. I wonder if it might not read better if that sentence were moved ahead of the sentence it currently follows?

Thanks for your thoughtful contributions. I look forward to working with you on this article. I hope you stick around to help us.Will3935 06:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, thanks so much for changing the parenthetical reference to Moreland's article to a Wikipedia cite. You may notice there are several more parenthetical references awaiting the skilled intervention of someone like you!!! You put me to shame. I gave up trying to make these changes a long time ago (but I think I might be able to make them now). On your first day on Wikipedia you figured it out. Good job! Thanks for your help!!Will3935 07:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing (yes, this should be all for now), Thanks for your input above concerning pictures / slidshows / whatever. If you have ideas and know how to import these materials into Wikipedia without inciting the wrath of administrators who seem to be quite concerned about copyright issues, I say GO FOR IT.Will3935 07:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I lied. Still o n e m o r e t h i n g. I take it from the context of your comments that when you speak of "textual analysis" you are not referring to textual criticism but to exegesis. Once we use our terms correctly we can get to the bottom line. Emergents do not believe in exegesis. This is a "modern" approach to Scripture. Answers.com is unfortunately not a good resource for understanding the finer points of biblical scholarship. I would recommend some recognized works on hermeneutics for understanding this concept. The etymology of the word implies a drawing meaning out of the text as opposed to reading one's own meaning into it. Certainly those who engage in postmodern hermeneutics do analyze the text, but it is not for the purpose of exegesis as that term has been used for centuries. I hope this clears up that issue somewhat for you. The jargon of biblical scholarship can be a little confusing to the unitiated and one must beware of simplistic, one sentence descriptions on pop sites such as answers.com. I would be happy to recommend scholarly resources on this topic to you if you wish to learn more about it. Blessings!Will3935 05:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep an Eye Out

Someone (ip address 204.126.2.5) who did not choose to reveal his or her username put a pro-ec article in the critical list. I don't know why this person would do so. It seems to be ignorance to me since, if this person wanted to promote ec, they would only have had to list the article in the right place. 204, we love you but prefer you at least learn the difference between pro and critical ec before making such edits. Good try though. Thanks for visiting!Will3935 07:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Educational Opportunity

Check out my course in creating postmodern jargon which I have placed on my userpage!Will3935 14:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Before Contributing...

(The entry below is taken from my userpage [Will3935]). I have found that sometimes unqualified people weigh in on Wikipedia articles, reducing the accuracy and quality of these articles in spite of their good intentions. Based on my experience, I believe these editors genuinely believe they are improving the articles they contribute to. The phenomenon reminds one of the deluded contestants who try out for American Idol and only end up humiliating themselves. When the judges offer sound criticism to these conterstants they tend to respond quite angrily. So it is, I have found, at Wikipedia. Being honest with these editors sometimes results in hard feelings on both sides. Perhaps I can prevent some of these hard feelings by sharing with you the criteria I try to abide by and subsequently expect of other editors. Before contributing, ask yourself the following questions:

1) Am I qualified to write? That is, do I possess a sufficient mastery of English to make a worthy entry in an encyclopedia? Am I aware that writing for an encyclopedia requires a set of skills not needed on a blog? If you are not a good writer consider running your proposed edits past those who do possess such skills before you make changes to an article.

2) Have I mastered the subject matter I am writing about? Reading a few books and articles about a subject does not necessarily make one sufficiently knowledgeable to address an issue in a reference work. This mastery of the subject must involve a thorough reading of many books and articles that express various views. Spending time talking to one's friends on a blog does not qualify one academically to contribute to an encyclopedia.

3) Am I willing to accept correction on matters of substance and style? Wikipedia articles are constructed by the consensus of a community of editors. Individual contributors can not expect to bypass this community and they must be willing to accept correction or criticism without getting angry and bitter.

4) Am I sufficiently confident in my edits that I do not believe I need to resort to sock puppetry or other violations of policy for my edits to stand?

5) When engaged in an editing conflict with someone is my goal accuracy or victory? Wikipedia's purpose is to inform its readers not to boost the egos of its editors.Will3935 11:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jargon

Below is the satirical entry regarding postmodern jargon I mentioned earlier:

A Short Course in Creating Postmodern Jargon (by me)

1) Take an existing word and add prefixes and/or suffixes. See the examples below:

"television" ... "televisional"

"stereo" ... "destereoization"

"history" ... "rehistoricalized"

2) Graft another word onto the existing one.

"televisional broadcasticity"

"factized destereoization"

"rehistoricalized narrativeness"

3) You must then use your jargon frequently for it to gain credibility.

"Televisional broadcasticity causes a new, missional matrix."

"All efforts to impose one's own narrative on another person are subject to factized destereoization"

"All propositional absolutations are subject to the deconstruction inherent in the rehistoricalized narrativeness discovered in new community paradigms."

4) You must also use your term in false antitheses:

"Instead of radioized waveness we can only advertise through televisional broadcasticity."

"Either one engages in factized destereoization, or they will live apart from the benefits of authentic narrative."

"Tyrannical, absolutized approaches to narrow, community post-paradigms are no longer valid in a model that engages a more generous, rehistoricalized narrativeness."

After you have followed the above four steps you will be awarded the authentic, postmodernal, gold star of hypersophisticatedness!!Will3935 11:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have since put an improved and greatly expanded version on my userpage if anyone is interested. I do believe it is relevant to this article in that much of what passes for scholarship these days is just "philosobabble."Will3935 17:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Steve Chalke

I undid the revision of the anonymous editor who deleted Steve Chalke from the prominent figures list. Steve is both quite prominent and quite emergent. Unless he has had a recent change of heart I can see no reason for such a deletion when so many non-prominent figures remain on the list.Will3935 23:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the anonymous editor who set me straight about Chalke. Apparently other emergents don't consider him one of them, thus justifying the editors' deletion.Will3935 23:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

To Will3935 - NT Wright endorsed Steve Chalke's book "The Lost Message of Jesus." Also Brian McLaren used this book in "The Secret Mesage of Jesus." Chalke is more prominent than many of the people on the list. UK dditions to this list should include Kester Brewin and Peter Rollins. 10 March 2007

N.T.Wright endorsed Steve Chalke's book because it nicks an emourmous amount of the theological direction of his series – Christian Origins and the Question of God. It is an ironic comment given which I spoke at length to him about last year at a conference - to put it bluntly he was pissed off that someone had effectively ripped off his work without due credit. Steve Chalke in now way is part of the UK emerging church scene - he closed down a flourishing emerging church at church.co.uk. I know this because a close friend of mine used to run it. User:garethpowell 00:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank your for the clarification. I stand corrected re: Chalke. 27 March 2007.

Theological Roots, Spirituality, Photos, Values and Characteristics

I believe the postliberal theological roots of ec (Lindbeck et. al.) is not described in this article at all. Perhaps some ambitious soul could work on this. Also, Niceguy2all is right that the article ignores all issues related to postmodern spiritualiy and thankfully the Ken Silva types have not tried to weigh in on this here (sorry Ken, you are a faithful brother but I think you are somehwat unfair on this issue -- just my opinion [and no, I'm not the childish brat who keeps mocking Ken in the article]). Also, my lack of technosavvy really embarassed me. I'm an old fogey who is somewhat technophobic. If some bright technosavvy person would paste appropriate photos in this article it would greatly improve it. In the course of pasting together the work of various editors we have ended up with a two-part Values and Characteristics section that I proposed be merged into one. I think the article has a long way to go still.Will3935 06:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Answer to Mark

My answer to the following edit:

23:54, 6 March 2007 Markdf10825 (Talk | contribs) (Deleted this quote because without more context it was more incendiary than informative; what is the battle Moreland is referring to, who are the barbarians, etc.)

Mark (I hope I can call you that for short) I do appreciate your concern here. First, let me assure you that by "barbarians" Moreland does not mean emergents. What Moreland is referring to is the ageless battle between truth and error, light and darkness. I know these are not postmodern categories, but that is exactly the point. The quotation summarizes "modern" concerns with EC and thus serves as an articulate expression of such concerns. It is not our place to either endorse or reject the reasoning in the quote for all we are doing is using the quote to summarize Evangelical concerns. Certainly one has the right to disagree with Moreland and even to feel his comments are incendiary. Nevertheless, Moreland does succinctly state what other Evangelicals have expressed. We do not have to agree with these Evangelicals or even approve of the way they express themselves, but in an encyclopedia we are duty bound to relate the facts as well as we can. The fact is that Evangelicals have criticized EC and Moreland's quote summarizes their criticisms well. We must resist any temptation to censor these facts from Wikipedia just because we do not like the tone in which the one quoted speaks. Hope this helps clear up the reason why I maintain the quote should stay in order to make the article as accurate and articulate as possible. I believe that censoring this quote only takes away from the overall quality of the article. Will3935 13:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Prominent Figures List

The list of names has become notoriously way too long and we are in danger of having an administrator delete the entire thing, considering it advertising and a web directory. Both lists now stand at 22 names.I propose that any names added to either list must come at the expense of one already on it. Below I've pasted a relevant satire from my userpage:

About the Spamming in the Emerging Church Movement Article

To those who are interested, I am not responsible for the spamming and advertising on the emerging church "prominent figures" list. It just became impossible to fight after awhile. I think there are still two or three emergent blogs in the world that are not promoted there. Once they get on the list I am thinking about adding my cat. He is as noteable as some of the "prominent figures" already on the list. See the entry below that I've already prepared for him:

Haddon 3935, Prominent American cat. Founder of emergentcat.com and a well-known, late-night speaker in the alley. Influential, early figure in the emerging cat conversation and author of the noteworthy works A New Kind of Feline and Meowal Living (both scratched out in his litter box). Has also made significant contributions to the Wikipedia sandbox.Will3935 19:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply Concerning Prominant Figures List

Bromaynard 22:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC):

As cute at the cat addition is, I don't think it's appropriate to have a solitary arbiter playing watchdog over the page. Outside of the USA, we're wondering why, when the ECM is *not* specifically an American phenomenon, we would be seeing names deleted from the non-American lists in order to keep the overall size down, but the US list remains so long.

My suggestion would be to delete Grenz, Driscoll (move to critics?), McManus, Miller, and Sweet from the US list to make room, and cap the US list there. These deletions all represent important voices that bear mentioning, but none of them are necessarily noted foremost for being part of the ECM conversation. Most of these refer to books, and perhaps a list of their relevant works could go under the "Further Reading" section instead. Perhaps move Gibbs for the same reason.

I noticed that Jamie Arpin-Ricci was added (not sure by whom) and then deleted under Canada. Speaking from the ECM in Canada, I can assure you his name belongs there, as does Len Hjalmarson and Alan Roxburgh. I would just make the edit to add them, but I think they'd just be deleted... perhaps some consensus here first?

Despite my snippy watchdog comment, I definitely agree that the list is too long... I might also suggest removing Seay and Jones from the US list, just to try and keep it down. Yes, they are significant voices, and globally are more prominant than the Canadian ones I suggest, but I think there's an imbalance and some of the regional voices should be noted within their context.

Reply Concerning Prominant Figures List

jamiearpinricci 23:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC):

While I am not necessarily advocating my name being listed, I do agree with Bromaynard. I think there has been too much cutting from non-US lists and deletions being done by a very, very few. We need to see a more balanced global listing, as the emerging church movement did not start in the US, nor is it only in the US. Accuracy demands more attention in this area

Your input sounds good! I have also been dialoging with Ian Mosby and another British editor (mostly through user talk pages so our discussion is unfortunately not here (maybe I'll paste it here if they don't object). I feel unqualified to undertake this process alone since I am an ethnocentric American. I'll interact a little about specifics here.

Driscoll -- His name has been moved around several times. No one ever seems happy with where it ends up. The current compromise (with the qualifiers in text) seems to have made for peace over the longest time so I think it wisest to leave it as is, though I have no emotional investment in it.

Grenz -- I understand the suggestion to delete his name, but I believe it would be very hard to understate the theological influence he has had on EC. Admittedly he does not have a popular blog, but I do believe he has, in his own way, been extremely influential.

Miller -- Possibly a good candidate for deletion in my opinion.

Jones -- Interesting. You are not the first to suggest his deletion which I think would raise cries of protest from some editors. Again, I have no emotional investment in his inclusion but wonder if his deletion can be justified?

As to the solitary watchdog observation, I must admit I feel somewhat that way at the moment and I agree that such is not at all appropriate for Wikipedia. Thus I do much appreciate your input and as well as the input of editors from all regions. I am learning, though at times the messages (perhaps we should all talk here rather than on user talk pages) seem contradictiory. I have heard conflicting things from British emergents regarding Chalke, for example. Anyway, I do respect your input and defer to your judgment since I have American blinders on!Will3935 00:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Bromaynard 03:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC): Just to clarify, I haven't been adding and deleting my name or Jamie's just now. Will3935, thanks for your openness on this. I recognize deleting people is a touchy area. To be clear, I don't think the list if of influences should necessarily be bloggers. I wonder if there's a middle ground of splitting influential works (books, articles) from influential voices which are ongoing. Another approach might be to reconsider whatever can't be linked.

I like the idea of consulting with people in each region about who they see as a prominant voice. In Australia, FORGE should be linked, and probably add Andrew Hamilton to the list. He isn't blogging right now, but that doesn't mean he isn't influential in Oz. The FORGE guys could make other nominations, as the Resonate group could for Canada. otoh, I'm not certain that either one would, given that some people in the EC have gotten a bit cynical about this specific list. I wonder if editing it shouldn't be restricted somehow, it gets so much abuse. Perhaps we could encourage future changes to go through a nomination/discussion first... I'm new enough to Wikipedia that I'm not sure what the protocol is for that, or if it's practical.

Just guessing, but I wonder if the only reason the list hasn't been deleted entirely again is that the number of external links has been minimized. btw, who wrote the description for Jerry Falwell?

Seems to me you have an excellent grasp of the situation. As far as I am concerned, much of the difficulty lies in how to measure "prominence." I was the editor who started the list (ancient history) with just a few names. My intent was not to create a comprehensive directory. Not only would such a thing violate Wikipedia policy it would be impossible to limit. The truth is we have sufficient links to such directories and have no need of lengthy lists. My intent was to simply give readers who were new to the subject a sampling of some of its figures. This decision to create a list came from my personal experience in discussing ec with people unfamiliar with it. They would inevitably ask for some names associated with it. I do not regret starting the list but I fear it has become something of a laughing stock and I am a little surprised admins allow it to remain. I suspect one problem we have is that some people have seen exclusion from the list as an insult. They see "less prominent" figures included in it and feel obliged to put someone whom they feel has been slighted on the list. Just a suspicion. Anyway, too much is being made of it I think, but none of the issues involved with the list are hills I am willing to die on. I just fear it will be deleted altogether. As for Falwell, I have no idea who put him on the critics list, but I am going to delete his name. He has no doubt preached some tv sermons that criticize ec but I don't think he qualifies for the term "prominent critic." Thanks.Will3935 08:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Idea regarding the list

I believe there is one way the list could expand without overwhelming an article (which is the case now) and without being in danger of deletion. Wikipedia's Project Christianity has some rather lengthy lists. They even have a "List of Ex-Christians." I have jokingly suggested a list of ex-readers of the list of ex-Christians. We could go back to the more modest list of both critics and proponents and move everything more lengthy to Project Christianity if they will have us. We could have both an in-text link and a reference link to the list in this article. I kinda think that might be a good idea, but again, I am not emotionally invested in it. Any thoughts?Will3935 09:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Bromaynard 16:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC): I think this is a very good idea, just move everything out except the bare-bones, early influences or major authors perhaps. 5 names plus a link to additional influences under the Christianity Portal. Just so I understand, do you mean here? I'm not particularly invested in what goes where either, but I like this approach. If people really wanted an exhaustive list of bloggers, they can go to EmergingChurchBlogs or Technorati.

Technically I was referring to here but it is all Wikipedia.Will3935 16:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Bromaynard 17:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC): Okay, that makes sense - just wasn't sure where to find it. Provided there's a link from the article to the list, I think this move can help avoid continually having the article defaced uh, edited in a self-serving manner. If the list grows to 30 names, fine - more appropriate over there. I say go for it. As to the name of the list, "voices in the emerging church conversation" is probably EC jargon, so other ideas would be good ;^)

Great! Only two observations:

1) I suggest we wait a few days before the move since other editors seem to be checking in a little slowly lately and it would be good for them to get used to the idea before we do it. I think it would come as a shock to the system for some of them if it was done before they knew about it.

2) I hope no admins object to the list once we try to move it. Because of the many blog links it is at least possible admins will consider the list in its current state a web directory once it comes to their attention, and Wikipedia has a strong policy against those who would turn it into such. Admins may have us rid the list of the links to blogs etc. when we do move it. If they take such a posture we could always resume discussion about what we want to do.Will3935 22:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Bromaynard 02:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC): on #1, I agree that's the best approach. wrt #2, if it's just a web directory, I would say it should be deleted. If the list meets with resistance as written, then remove the web links and make the links to the respective wiki page... if nobody bothers to create the missing wiki pages, then there's no external link, meaning it ceases to be a web directory. This should have the added advantage of less tinkering with it to exploit the list.

Link not working

68.127.158.243 just put a link to an article in the pro-articles section. I repeatedly tried the link and nothing happened. Perhaps 68 can try again. If the dead link stays for a long time someone will eventually delete it.Will3935 23:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Bromaynard 02:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC): The link seems to work now, but it goes to an article for which free registration is required. That grates on me, so I didn't go any further. Is there an editorial policy on those?

Don't know of a specific policy. That doesn't mean there isn't one. I feel the same way you do and won't feel bad if someone deletes it.Will3935 03:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Blog Links

For those who did not know, blog links are a clear violation of Wikipedia policies. I deleted a few. We have already provided links to related web directories. I don't know for sure, but even these may be on shaky ground, but I propose we leave them until someone slaps our hand and sets us straight.Will3935 12:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Favorable Books

The favorable books section needs to be alphabetized. I'll do it when I get time if no one else does. (Sinbad Lives!) Will3935 16:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Prominent Canadians

This question is irrelevant if the list is successfully moved, but the stated qualifications for prominence among the Canadians seem weak to me. If one is "prominent" simply by being a practitioner and and thinker the bar for prominence is set so low the name of the list should be changed to "Active and Thinking Emerging Church Movement Participants." This is also irrelevant but it seems from looking at this list that having a blog is in itself a qualification for prominence. Just having a blog is certainly evidence that one is tech-savvy and that one has friends they talk to, but it is not in itself an indication of prominence unless that blog (such "The Ooze") is prominent (something difficult to quantify and something none of the list's entries seek to establish). Anyway, if we get the list moved anyone who vaguely thinks they might be emerging can put themselves (policy against self promotion has frequently been violated here) on the list and it won't really be our problem.Will3935 00:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Did some searching for these figures and found no reference to them outside of their blogs and the blogs of their friends (although Goodyear did have a newspaper right up for his tattoos). I question whether this meets Wikipedia criteria of prominence: "One measure of publicity is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)." Nevertheless, it probably won't be our problem for too long. I do suggest, however, that when the list is moved the word "prominent" be deleted from it as many of its figures are not prominent outside of their circle of friends.Will3935 16:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting the Canadians

I have done more research into the "prominent Canadians" and I do sincerely believe that my cat is more "prominent' than these figures. If these are the most prominent emergents in Canada the emerging church movement must have made almost no impact there. It seems to me their inclusion for such prominence as founding a "small church" is comical. I've done that and much more. Maybe I should get a friend to put me and all of the other "thinkers" who have started small ministries on the list while I go ahead and list my cat.Will3935 14:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone differs with my deletion I propose we seek a third opinion here in Wikipedia. I think any admin will agree we have to draw the line somewhere, and with these latest additions to the list we have, in my opinion, crossed quite far over that line.Will3935 14:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, for those who did not know, promoting oneself or one's friends within the bounds of Wikipedia is a violation of it's policies.Will3935 14:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to Prominance & Deletion of Canadians

Will, I think some of your comments on this are actually "catty" (speaking of your cat) and outside the bounds of what's proper, since you're publicly disparaging the contributions of people to a regional conversation of which you're clearly not a part. To suggest that the "emerging church movement must have made almost no impact there" is small-minded, insulting, and untrue. The fact that it doesn't look like the American emerging church is one of its distinctives, not a disqualification.

To insist that inclusion on a regional list require as great or greater prominance than American EC-celebrities is to insist that voices in some parts of the world will never qualify to be listed for their region. The Emerging Church is criticized for a lack of worldwide voices, yet the American editorial policy here would start deleting those who begin to speak up in their own context? Suppose a South African emerging church practitioner begins within his context to be a significant voice, but doesn't write a book, doesn't plant a megachurch, and doesn't have 400 links to a blog somewhere. Perhaps he doesn't have an article about him in USA Today either... does that mean he isn't the foremost South African voice on the emerging church movement? Hardly. Not being in the top ten of the American awareness should definitely not disqualify such a person from the South African list. If the list is moved (which I wholeheartedly support) away from the article, perhaps it should be re-titled as examples or regional leaders or something.

Faililng that, if this is how this Wikipedia entry is going to be characterized, I will simply dispute its neutrality or recommend it be moved to "Emerging Church Movement in the USA" so we can create a different entry for the rest of the world, one which doesn't judge the entire planet by American standards.

Having said all of that, it is worth noting that most of the Canadian deletions were done by the individuals who were listed, and those who remained (at least the ones I spoke with, myself included) were not entirely comfortable being listed... both because we can all point to others in Canada whose contributions we value more highly and because none of us like what this list has become and don't wish to be associated in any way with its abuse. I didn't add them, and for this reason, I won't be adding them back. Apparently this article should genuinely be titled The Emerging Church Movement in the USA and we should think it quite big of the Americans to include 7 (count them, seven) people from the rest of the world in the list of influential people in the movement. - Bromaynard 15:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If you like we can seek a third opinion. Just let me know. I would welcome it. It sounds like you feel some emotion on this issue and an objective, third party would be most helpful in my opinion. I'm sorry maynard, but I can't see how pastoring a church with a handful of people in it or having a blog makes one "prominent" enough in any context or in any world region to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article as such. If that were so we would have to have thousands of entries. Wikipedia does have standards for measuring prominence and I am quite sure admins would be happy to give us their opinion. I am more than willing to entertain this third opinion from admins if you like. Just let me know and I will arrange for it. I wouldn't have stepped on your toes and upset you so much but I fear the list is making the article a laughing stock. It was never meant to be comprehensive and in fact a list so comprehensive has no place within the bounds of another article. It constitutes an article in its own right if admins will let it stay. We'll give it a try and then everyone and their dog (notice I didn't say cat) can have fun listing themselves and promoting their small churches.Will3935 16:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Will, perhaps I've misspoken or misstated my intent. If the list is going to be there, it should reflect whatever is happening in each region of the world in the emerging church in that context. As such, it would have some encyclopedic survey value. Since that could quickly overrun the article, it can't reside here. I'd be happy with the deletion of the list, or its removal to some obscure place. I think there may be an outcry over its deletion, so move it somewhere else - it's stopped being what it purports to be here though. I'm happy *not* to be on the list, and I'm happy to leave off my friends, my cat, and my neighbour. What I'm not happy about is having someone say that because the emerging church in other parts of the world don't look like an American megachurch, they don't qualify - because that fundamentally misunderstands what the emerging chruch movement actually is in several of its expressions worldwide. In part, the splitting of the list into regions causes the problem by highlighting regions and then persistently deleting ones which don't have a global voice (meaning they aren't "heard" in the USA). Personally, I hope that moving the list away from the article satisfies others that it wasn't actually deleted and they won't feel compelled to re-add it here, but I also hope that moving it makes the list obscure enough that people lose interest in tinkering with it endlessly. I don't need another opinion to convince me that the list has become a joke, that's my position as well... this whole thing just illustrates the point :^) Bromaynard 17:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving the List of Prominent Figures

I'm going to go ahead and try to move the list. Unfortunately, the more tech-savvy editors seem to be MIA at the moment, so I will give it a try. I don't know what I am doing so I will start at the help desk. It may take some time, but I will see if we can make the list an article in its own right and link it to this one.Will3935 16:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I put a help notice on my user talk page since I am hopelessly incompetent about such things. If everyone will just remain calm we will get the list moved in good time and then I will look the other way at what goes on within its borders.Will3935 16:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Lists are moved

An admin was gracious enough to move both lists (leaders and critics). Reflecting on your thoughts a little Maynard it seems to me that one of the problems we had in addressing the issue of prominence is that prominence in itself is not an emergent value. An emergent perspective would prefer to speak of the perceived value of emergents participation. Prominence, however, is a more objective, somewhat quantifiable, more modern concern (thus the name of the list in a modern venue such as an encyclopedia). I fully agree with your comments about African contexts vs. Western contexts, the problem I was having that the last time I looked at a map Canada was in the West (just north of America). Thus, I think it reasonable to use similar measurements of prominence in the Canadian and American contexts. The quality of Pernell and company's contributions may far outweigh that of any American. Nevertheless, quality is hard to measure in an objective reference tool. Certainly African contributors' prominence would be measured on a different scale than used in the West. Sadly though, few Africans have contributed to this article in spite of the fact that the emerging church movement is a significant factor on the continent. I believe I really do understand where you are coming from but I stand by my insistence that Goodyear et. al. are not prominent by Western standards regardless of how valuable they are.Will3935 18:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for undertaking this. I think you're seeing what I was saying a bit better, though it's not entirely a Western vs. non-Western thing. The USA has 300 Million people to Canada's 30-odd Million... so if the Canadians don't out-shout the Americans within the emerging church conversation, that's to be expected. It's also the nature of Canadians... but we could equally say that about Mexico, South Africa, Germany, France, wherever. My point was to say that if the list was to be split regionally, it should include the representative voices from that region - regardless whether they are globally more "notable" or "famous" or "prominant" globally.

In any event, I don't plan to mess about with the list now that it's off to the side... I think (and really hope) that the list spamming will be done with now, and that with it moved out of the main article, the overall tone and quality of the entry can be objectively tweaked and developed over time. I see that the list has also been flagged to cite references and sources, which can only help ;^) Bromaynard 04:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your points are well made. Still, I cannot help but wonder if Canada does not have more prominent figures in the emerging conversation. Again, this is not to question the value of anyone's contribution. Also, I have asked the admin who asked for citations in the list for a clarification. I suspect some contributors will interpret this as a license to link blogs which I doubt was his/her intent. If I read Wikipedia standards correctly, the request for citations in this list is looking for sources outside of the individuals and their close friends that recognize the notoriety of the person listed. Generally such a confirmation involves newspaper, television, or magazine coverage of a person whose impact on the surrounding world has gained public attention. Given the nature of the emerging church movement, I doubt there will be many people who meet that criteria. This is not a value judgment against emergent, it is a recognition of its general lack of top-heavy structure. I think a close analogy would be to develop a list of prominent figures in the high-protein diet movement. While there are certainly some high profile authors and perhaps even clinics that could be referred to, most of the practitioners would fail to meet any standard of prominence. This does not negate the value of their participation; it just recognizes the fact that their value does not come from their prominence. This is a very weak analogy but I think you may see what my point is.Will3935 10:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Turns out the admin is not looking for spam blog links. Instead he is looking for newspaper, magazine references etc. that show notoriety to the outside world. See his comment on my user talk page.Will3935 14:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

For the ECM it may be difficult to count "prominance" the same way, since it's internally valued differently... but no matter. I think we're both seeing each other's position on this fairly closely now. The main thing is that this whole side-issue is now part of another entry, can can be revised and discussed over there while the focus here can remain on the actual entry. On that subject I think this entry might be a bit hard to follow at some points (the structure, I mean) and there are places in the text which don't appear to be as objective as they should be. Rather than just start hacking at it though, I want to give it some thought as to how to approach the areas I'd like to suggest edits. Several people in the ECM no longer recognize the accuracy of this entry; this has always been sensitive since the entry first appeared, but I think it's distanced from the actual ECM participants more now than it was at one point. I'm not talking about objectivity so much as the fact that some of the people of whom the article is written don't easily recognize themselves in it. fwiw, this is similar to some of their response to D.A. Carson's book... a lot of them said, ";Well, we actually agree with his assessment of the wrong beliefs he describes, it's just that we don't actually hold the beliefs which he ascribes to us." Ironically, Carson accuses the ECM of using straw men... refer to one of the stronger sections of the entry for the source. Adding some citations and quotations will help bring a lot of clarity. Will, I also like your suggestion about adding some photos etc. Bromaynard 23:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the most challenging aspect of commenting upon EC from an npov is acknowledging diversity while at the same time recognizing commonalities. In this respect I believe Carson has rightly identified the key to doing this is by focusing first on epistemology. One may debate how well Carson represents EC as a whole, but I think he has at least clarified the bottom line issue. All other EC distinctives flow in some way from epistemological concerns. Without such epistemological distinctives EC would not be a new movement -- just a perspective within the old. The implications and outworkings of this epistemological distinctive vary greatly between EC participants. Thus, we have the tension between unity and diversity in EC. This makes the movement as a whole a little difficult to write about in the limited space Wikipedia provides.Will3935 14:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Carson is an important critic to be noted, despite the short-comings of his book. That being said, I think the statement that "all other EC distinctives flow in some way from epistemological concerns" is an over-statement. I am not trying to beat a dead horse or call you ethno-centric (your word, not mine - wink!), but I think this is an assumption that might be accurate from a US perspective, but is less true in a global view of things. There are several "streams" of the ECM, of which epistemology is one (even an important one), but there are other streams that are equally EC (not just a perspective within the old). Just a thought. Jamiearpinricci 23:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)