Talk:Emerging church/Archive 1

message: Added section on Ecclesiology of the Emerging Church.  I have tried desperately to make it sound NPOV, but there may be those who disagree with me.  Please feel free to fix what you consider flawed (as if, this being Wikipedia, you actually needed my permission).  Also, if I am completely wrong and there is some good information on ecclesiology in the Emerging Church, please direct me to it.  I have been trying for some time to find this information, but I can only find scraps at best.
--WestonWyse 20:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This section has been pared down to two (completely un-wikified) sentences that have nearly nothing to do with the heading, with no explanation of why (unless the "decentralized nature" of the ECM -- which is what its leaders claim -- and the lack of a unified ecclesiological doctrine -- which simply is the truth -- was considered POV for some odd reason).  At risk of being blamed for a revert war, I am making the Ecclesiology section once again actually be about Ecclesiology, not simply another sentence that should be moved to "Structure". --WestonWyse 02:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I was using "role" more all-encompasingly than that, but I see your point.  In this case, however, you shouldn't stop at just role and nature (as I think you are using "nature" as I was using "role"), as it still means more than that. --WestonWyse 14:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ecclesiology 

message: Does anyone else feel that the "Who is 'emergent'" section is just a re-hashing of the "Structure and Commonality" section?  And slightly POV?  I'll ask and see if anyone has objections before I do so, but it really seems that the two sections should be merged.  Or at least "Who is" should be made to seem a little less like an advert, because ATM it reads more like a sales brochure than an encyclopedia article.
--WestonWyse 05:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no objections, so I've rolled the information into the "S&C" section.  Most of the content was about what the "lower" levels of churches are not instead of what they are, so there was very little to add. --WestonWyse 22:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Who is 'emergent'" 

message: Western Christianity was influenced significantly over the last few centuries by Modernism in the sense that it sought to take the individual narratives of the Bible and from them extract a set of underlying truths or meta-narratives. Using methods borrowed from scientific reductionism it was hoped that a grand truth and worldview would be attained. In practice, the modernist approach led to additional schism within the Church.
Some church leaders, responding to postmodernism, in turn, encouraged followers to deconstruct each element of their faith experience, and reassemble the pieces in light of his or her own unique journey through this deconstruction process.
::Can sombody help me verify this?  I removed this so we could get rid of the factual accuracy dispute.--Artisan949 06:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Influence and Suspicion of Postmodernism 

message: While there is no single coordinated organization behind the emerging church globally, many church leaders and thinkers have written books, articles and/or blogs on the subject. Emerging Church groups typically contain some or all of the following elements:
* Highly creative approaches to worship and spiritual reflection, as compared to many American churches in recent years. This can involve everything from the use of contemporary music and films through to liturgy or other more ancient customs.
* A minimalist and decentralized organizational structure, somewhat "nonlinear."
* A flexible approach to theology whereby individual differences in belief and morality are accepted within reason.
* A holistic view of the role of the church in society. This can mean anything from greater emphasis on fellowship in the structure of the group to a higher degree of emphasis on social action, community building or Christian outreach; missional in it's core.
* A desire to reanalyze the Bible against the context with the goal of revealing a multiplicity of valid perspectives rather than a single valid interpretation
* A continual re-examination of theology, and a willingness to push the edge.
* A high value placed on creating communities built out of the creativity of those who are a part of each local body.
* A view of "leadership" as more "servant" and less "leader."  Church leaders are seen as more poet and painter and far less CEO or COO.
In common with the House church movement, the Emerging Church is challenging traditional notions of how the Church should be organized.
::Another section that needs to be cited.  Does anyone know of material that supports these characteristics?  Removed until we can verify so we can have factual accuracy. --Artisan949 06:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: it would be interesting to add some information on if emerging church is postmodern (or if just some of its members just WANT to seem to be so) and if such a thing as a true postmodern church could exist, not as an instution but as we as christians would assume Christ would understand it, as  either in contradiction to the "fundemental" christianness (not to be too problematic and reductive, but perhaps in such a confined space as a wiki article we couldnt be anything more than problematic and reductive to such a totally complex issue) Dantedanti 08:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinguishing Characteristics and Differences 

message: Because of the decentralized nature of the Emerging Church, as with many areas of doctrine, there is not a mutually agreed upon doctrine of ecclesiology -- a theology of the church, its role, nature, origin, and leadership. The emerging church claims its role to be continuing the mission of Christ, but there does not appear to be a unified stance on what role the church as a body plays in that mission.
:: Again, we need to verify and cite sources for factual accuracy.  Also this paragraph doesn't say much except the emerging has no ecclesiology.  Let's work on something better.  Anyone want to contribute?--Artisan949 07:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ecclesiology

message: I've removed the links to Emerging Church Blogs, Emerging Church Sites, and Examples of Emerging Churches, since those pages contained nothing but external links, which is not appropriate since Wikipedia is not a web directory. Angela. 07:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
::Thanks Angela.  I had wanted to do that myself but others recommended starting another page and I thought that was an OK work around.  But now that its been removed and after looking at other wikipedia articles, I do not think we should external links at all.  Thanks again. --Artisan949 15:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Check out Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Many of the current references don't look very good by encyclopedic standards. I appreciate that online discussion, and especially the blog circuit, is a significant medium in which the emerging church operates. Trouble is, Wikipedia doesn't much rate sources that are basically personal viewpoints on blogs.
Obscurity is another problem. I think it's worth checking out the plenty of clear and accessible online explanations of the emerging church. See, for instance, this DA Carson article, The Emerging Church. Or this PBS special (Part 1, Part 2) which has a wealth of further references. Or The Emergent Mystique from Christianity Today. Aaron Flores' graduate thesis (referenced here) looks interesting.
That splurge of sources at the top of Emerging Church#References needs wikifying and liposuction too. Tearlach 04:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points.  That is a huge problem because some of the best EC sources are online in new media (though not all are credible).  The ones listed are credible, however.  For some of the sources, we could substitue something from paper.  This would not be difficult to do.  Also, lipoed the first reference. (BTW: I am Aaron Flores) --Artisan949 16:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality of references

message: Primarily the problems with the suggested intro were: 1) If we are going to talk about the EC as a 20th century occurrence, then we must say it was a conversation. It was not until recently that "movement" is becoming more vastly used (mainly by critics).  If you would like to work that into the intro, that would be fine.  However, the conversation or movement paragraph was added so the intro would not be as argued on this point. 2) The global EC is not primarily concerned with form or methodology so this was deleted and is not supported by sources.  Please provide where you are getting your information.  We have also discussed that point at length recently on this talk page.  Again, thanks for all the edits!!!  The article looks better indeed. --Artisan949 03:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked Tearlach's introduction from his edit dated 01:12 26 July 2005.  You changed it, citing your concerns over the word movement, but altered more than that.  I tried to address your concerns in my edit dated 16:47 26 July 2005.  There are a couple of reasons I prefer Tearlach's opening.  Firstly, it is in the present tense.  The Emerging Church exists today and we should begin our article that way.  Secondly, century is not capitalized in a phrase "20th century".  Thirdly, "arising in the late 20th Century into the 21st Century" is very awkward.  Fourthly, Tearlach's introduction brings up postmodernism right away, which I think is important. -Acjelen 03:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a question: Who was the "conversation" between? Shouldn't the intro make that clear? It could be two guys in Timbuktu! ;) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 10:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Konrad -- you will soon find that word "conversation" has escoteric meaning in certain EC circles, and Artisan949 will insist on using it in this non-standard fashion without being able to define what it is that he means.  It apparently makes perfect sense to him this way, and beyond that there is something very important about using this specific word.  No other words will do, it has to be "conversation".  As an outsider looking in it is quite puzzling. I will make some edits now to attempt to clarify what I think he means, but not being a true believer, I'm not sure I can speak EC truth. technopilgrim 20:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks technopilgrim. Your edit makes more sense, but it's still a bit strange. Wouldn't it be more clear to replace "conversation" with what it means, and then introduce the term "conversation" later on as an EC term? As it stands, the reader realises that "conversation" is an EC term, but still has no idea what it means. I'm not trying to stir up controversy (God no!) but I strongly believe that articles should be readable and understandable by the casual reader. (Thanks Tearlach for your postmodern wiki link!) :) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 23:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: technopilgrim, I appreciate you speaking on my behalf but I am not married to EC as solely a conversation.  I seek for this article to be as unbiased as possible.  At any rate, to say that the EC exist solely as a movement, but others call it a conversation (EC terminology) is poor.  Rather, I think this is more NPOV, "The emerging church or emergent church is considered a movement and conversation which arose in the late 20th century in Western Europe, North America, and the South Pacific. The emerging church is concerned with the deconstruction and reconstruction of Protestant Christianity in a postmodern cultural context."  I do not agree with an intro that is biased towards one or the other.  Fair? --Artisan949 08:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction Concerns