Talk:Emerging church/Archive 5

message: I am somewhat uncomfortable with the use of the term "generous orthodoxy" to describe one of the values of the emerging church, simply because it has such an obvious connection to McLaren (who is already quite prominent in this article).  I agree with the description of this characteristic (although one could ask how it differs from the last "conversation / dialogue" characteristic); it is simply the use of the title that seems a little partisan.  I can't seem to think of an alternative just at the moment; perhaps someone else more creative than I could? --Green Door 15:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although McLaren has popularized the term "generous orthodoxy" he did not invent it.  Hans Frei coined the term and other emergents used it before McLaren.  I believe the reason McLaren titled one of his books A Generous Orthodoxy was because this was a term and a concept already accepted in emergent circles.  It seems to me that this "generous orthodoxy" is a natural result of the postmodern epistemology that characterizes the movement.  I think "generous orthodoxy" should stay in the article for these reasons.  McLaren also uses all of the other terms found in Values and Characteristics.  Should we find new words for all of them simply because McLaren uses them?  If we eliminate all terminology McLaren uses we will also have to find a new title for the article and never refer to "emerging."  As for McLaren's "prominence in the article" he is only mentioned once other than his inclusion in the list of prominent figures along with many other names.  Driscoll and Seay are also mentioned beside their inclusion in the list (Driscoll Twice).  If anything, it seems to me that McLaren's prominence in the movement is not reflected in the article. Will3935 18:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It is unfortunate that some emergents have taken that attitude towards evangelicals and hopefully they will grow up.  I consider myself to be an evangelical who attends an evangelical church with a wife, parents and many friends who are modernist evangelicals that cannot identify with the emergent church.  Being a baptist, I also enjoy the company of a strongly conservative evangelical/fundamentalist baptist message board.  Having an attitude of grace in disagreement with non-emergent evangelicals is important for me to interact with those I love and interact with on a regular basis.  Gold Dragon 03:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Stop embarassing yourself Will.  Don't you realize that logical propositions went out with bellbottoms and tie-dyed shirts?Loudguy 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Values and Characteristics 

message: I made some changes to keep the article balanced.  It seems to me that some of the wording was misleading and I don't believe Chris Seay is quite in the same category as Mark Driscoll.  If someone can correct me about Seay I will be happy to reverse that particular change.Loudguy 01:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance

message: Gold Dragon was right to move the critical statement about emergent faith to the criticisms section.  The only problem now is that it seems redundant, since that issue is already addressed in the criticisms section.  Also, it does not fit the flow of the paragraph.  It's just hanging there like a deformed appendage.  If no one objects before long I will delete it.Will3935 18:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: I thought self promotion violated Wikipedia policy. Is it OK for Jason Clark to add himself to the prominent figures list?Will3935 22:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Self Promotion

message: First, it was Gold Dragon, one of the most pro-EC editors working on this article who deleted Jason for self-promotion. You unfairly impugn Gold Dragon's character and presume the worst concerning his motives while I believe his actions illustrate his integrity.  I believe you owe Gold Dragon (a fellow emergent) a sincere apology.  JOK, you are on Wikipedia's turf here.  This is not an emergent blog.  It is an objective, encyclopedia with rules, one of which is against self promotion.  The rules apply to everyone.  The fact that you are "OK" with something is irrelevant if you are on someone else's turf and they have rules that apply to everyone, including emergents such as yourself.  Secondly, regarding the value of the article it will only be as valuable as it is honest and objective.  I know "objective" is not a good postmodern word, but it is a concept many people value nonetheless.  In Soul Tsunami, p.21, Len Sweet advises emergents to learn to speak out of both sides of their mouth.  If they choose to do so in their books and blogs that is their prerogative, but even emergents must respect the purpose and principles of an encyclopedia if they wish to contribute to it. Face the facts JOK, an encyclopedia is a "modern" tool (first developed in the dreaded enlightenment) that is designed to accurately report objective truth as opposed to emoting the narrative of a given community's "authentic reality" that need not correspond to factual reality.  You question who does or does not support the emergent movement.  That, again is irrelevant.  The question for a Wikipedia article is who does or does not support a factual telling of the objective truth. The measurement of the value of an encyclopedia article (as opposed to a blog article) about any organization or movement (Masons, Scientologists, Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Catholics etc. etc.) is not how well it advances the cause of a given movement but how accurately it tells the truth (which correpsonds to reality)about that movement. Encyclopedias are not intended to be a platform for misleading propoganda by proponents of a movement that speaks out of both sides of the mouth.  Thus, by defininition, a legitimate encyclopedia article about EC can never be one you value.  As you seem to have found it difficult (for quite some time) to conduct yourself in this forum with the same level of emotional maturity as other emergent editors such as Gold Dragon, I would advise you to stick to your blogs where you can safely ignore such "modern" inconveniences as consistent use of terms, objectivity, and facts.  I know that sounds harsh, JOK.  I'm sure you are a very nice person (people who know you have said so), but you simply must learn what the rules and methods are for an objective, truthful article in Wikipedia and you must face the fact that its purpose is truth (in the "modern" sense) and not promotion of your movement that puts the best cosmetic appearance upon it while censoring those issues that you know will be controversial.  In other words, Wikipedia is a place where people are supposed to "play fair" and "shoot straight," two concepts that are not demanded by postmodern epistemology (and thus, apparently by you as well). You only make yourself look bad when you emote so childishly over the fact that an encyclopedia article takes on the real characteristics of an encyclopedia article rather than merely support your biased agenda which I very strongly believe is misleading.Will3935 22:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jok -- There is no rule against editing one's comments as there is against self promotion in the Wikipedia handbook or as there is against judging one's motives and heart in the Bible.  You have no substantial response so you resort to ad hominems as I suspected you might.  I don't know why you think it is bad form to edit one's own comments (perhaps you can explain -- I've never heard any reasoning advanced for such a position before).  I happen to know that McLaren revises and edits his work which is done for publication.  Have you similarly rebuked him for this "bad form?"  It's fascinating how you postmoderns can so cavalierly disregard objective, external authorities such as the Wikipedia handbook yet so confidently impose your own temporarily fancied subjective standards on selective targets.  My form is "authentic" to me.  All kidding aside, I am having severe health problems at this time (which also makes me grouchier than usual [so watch yourself bud]) and editing helps me to go back and check and revise what I have done earlier since earlier work may be incomplete or flawed -- I never dreamed anyone would rebuke me for it and I still don't understand what aspect of it you find so objectionable.  (Hey, I've heard Rush needs some help mocking Michael J. Fox.  Maybe you can give him a hand.)  Jok, one thing that seems to escape you still is that all of this petty bickering about motives, editing one's comments etc. is totally irrelevant to the purpose of this page and to the purpose of Wikipedia.  It's Not all about John O'Keefe's feelings.  Nor is it about impugning the integrity of those who disagree with you. It is all about creating a quality article that is true to the facts.  If you expected anything other than my telling you the truth, it is clear you do not know me at all.  I believe "conversation" involves listening sometimes.  I have spent many, many more hours listening to emergent views than responding to them.  It would not hurt you to allow critical voices on ginkworld (or to have done so on the old postmodern_theology where the views of "moderns" were not welcomed)and you should not be so insecure that you feel threatened by those who disagree with you.  I respect you as a person (as I said, those who know you say you are likeable) and I love you as a brother, but I do not respect some of your conduct within the bounds of Wikipedia (which is supposed to be neutral turf).  I do not say that to anger you but to help you. Sometimes the wounds of a friend are better than the kisses of an enemy.  By the way, I still think you owe fellow emergent Gold Dragon an apology for impugning his motives.  I highly respect him even though I do not always agree with him.Will3935 22:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: well, will we are not going to see eye to eye on much - and i have no problems with my not agreeing with you. i am glad you "love me as a brother" because your words speak very different.  i voiced a concern and never mentioned anyone by name, you turned it personal.  i never once mentioned anyone by name, nor did i ever imply a name - you did that.  i simply made a statement concering the direction of the article from what it was in the past - you could have addressed my concerns, but you selected to insult me instead.  this article is turning into a "bash the emerging church" article and not a article about it - you can disagree with that, and i am ok with you doing so - but you have no right to then insult me and belittle my views - i find that insulting.  i simply seem to be saying what others have wanted to say but felt they could not say for what ever reason they have.  so, brfore you desire to keep turning this into a "yo mama" contest, address the issue at hand.  ginkworld 00:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee Jok, I heard yo mama was so fat that....No seriously, I thought I had addressed the issues at hand and I mentioned Gold Dragon because he is the one who deleted Jason (which you complained of).  This page is not for childish arguing anyway.  If you have anything substantial to specifically discuss concerning the article I would be happy to.  I have thoroughly enjoyed working with a variety of emergents on this article.  We have always managed to express our views as vigorously as we can, come up with a compromise, and end up as friends.  I wish such had been possible with us.  Blessings on you until we have something specific to discuss regarding the article (just take your medication first -- only kidding).  I know you are upset that there are criticisms of the movement in the article and I wish I could make you feel better about that Jok, but the fact is that the movement has been criticized and any responsible article will tell all the relevant facts.  I know I talk tough sometimes but that does not mean I hate you or do not love you as a brother.  Just think of me as a tough debater.  Also, when one is as sick as I have been one stops caring if others consider them to be a sweetheart.  That probably is a bad thing, I must admit.  Please forgive me for the tone I have used on this occasion and for the tone I will likely use on the next.Will3935 06:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: will, i would love to read it and i hope all is well for you.  while i have no problem with critism, i am a bit tossed back to see that it is one sided.  that at one point there was a list of emerging books, articles and sites that support an emerging view - but they were removed and yet the list of critics books, articles and sites has not been removed - why?  i think, they sould either be removed, or a list of resources that are supportive of the emerging must be added.  i believe most of the the resources are one sided, and resources that are added that speak for the emerging are removed - that is what i am not good with, and that is what i was addressing in the heading "i question the value of this article."  i do not find this article ver "balanced" and i believe that needs to be addressed - some have tried before, but where shut out of the process in one form or another - me, while i am a nice guy i also am the guy who will stand his ground - so, baring any major objection i will be adding resources on the emerging side - let me know :) ginkworld 15:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jok: That is what this is all about.  I have encouraged emergent participation and additions.  I welcome yours.  Gold Dragon and I have vigorously duked it out many times before coming to a friendly compromise.  Just be aware that Wikipedia has rules against self promotion and against using Wikipedia articles as a web directory for blogs and websites.  Thus, while you may add substantive articles to the section which already exists for that, you will find that any and all blogs of any persuasion will be deleted (most likely by Gold Dragon or myself).  The list of names is growing so long that we may eventually have to create a link to an article dedicated to just names of participants.  That was the only reason we tried to keep it pared down at one point -- not that there was any kind of blacklist or anything.  I, for one, give up on keeping the list of prominent figures brief and anticipate the day when such a division may need to take place.  By the way, I am a very thick skinned old bird.  I worked for a while teaching secondary English before pastoring.  After experiencing Jr. High boys there is very little anyone can say to hurt my feelings, but I do find that I am occassionally insensitive to other's feelings.  Not everyone has either been in the marines (not that I was)or taught Jr. High boys.  Sorry I can be such a jerk at times.  If you need advice, Gold Dragon always seems to know how to calm me down when I get grouchy (my health problems really do exacerbate my already entrenched tendency to be honery). I don't really mean anything deeply hateful when I use strong rhetoric.  I'm just zealous and insensitive.  I'm not sure I'm reading you right about my article. Are you volunteering to critique it?  If so I will email a copy of it to ginkworld.  If you don't mind, let me know more specifically about that.  By the way, I heard yo mama was so fat they had to detour the interstate highway around her.Will3935 22:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: One more thought...The area of emergent practice that most interests me is in their approaches to ecclesiology.  I have long been part of an established denomination and have seen the flaws inherent in this structure.  Forgive the alliteration, but this structure tends to promote professional politicians and punish principled prophets.  I am very interested in learning anything new that EC can contribute to the subject of ecclesiology.Will3935 22:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, you guys have been busy since I've last checked in.  Will3935, you embarass me with all the props you've given me.  I'll remember to pray for your health.  But I must agree with ginkworld that the article has taken a strong anti-emergent POV which is not good for an NPOV encyclopedia.  I'm guilty of not helping to fix that but I've been pretty busy starting up school again and I've recently been accepted into med school over in ginkworld's side of the world.  Anyway, I hope you guys can improve this article without the bickering that brings shame to the name of our mutual Lord.  Gold Dragon 05:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's Just Be Honest