Talk:Emerging church/Archive 4

message: Let's continue discussion/inclusion/exclusion of pioneers here.  I'll be sure to read up on Hauerwas.  I'm also going to bring back Driscoll.  While he has been critical of many within the emergent church, he clearly identifies with the emergent church as well and someone I would consider to be a significant pioneer.  Here are a couple of links. "Criswell Theological Review : A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church by Mark Driscoll (PDF)"
"Christianity Today - Men are from Mars Hill by Jason Bailey"
You have a point on Driscoll.  Some websites (pro and contra EC) seem to consider him as having a change of heart about the whole movement.  I don't know him personally, so I can't really say, however you are absolutely right in identifying him as a pioneer of the movement, whatever he is saying at this point.  I understand the inclusion.  I do  think that perhaps something should be said about McLaren's prominence in the movement as his entry does not indicate this at this point.  This is not a major point either way, though.  One person I keep thinking of who is not listed is Nancy Murphy.  If the section were titled "prominent leaders," I might understand her exclusion, but I think of her as a significant, early "pioneer."  On a different topic, when I put citations in the criticisms paragraph I will face some choices. Since this is a section about Evangelical criticisms I could just cite instances of where these criticisms have been made.  This alone may seem inadequate to others who are expecting citations which show examples of emergents saying or doing the things others are critical of.  Anybody have any thoughts?--Will3935 10:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend finding good sources from critics that actually quote or reference real instances of what they consider to be emergent "abuses" or controversial statements and avoid referencing those critics who simply make unsupported blanket statements.  Gold Dragon 14:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I agree.  Smith and Carson are probably the best sources for these kinds of references.  I hope you can bear with me.  I'm having some extremely frustrating health problems at the moment, but I should have these citations within one week.  Very sorry for the delay.--Will3935 23:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No hurry about those citations.  There are other editors who can also do the work.  Gold Dragon 13:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You make some good points and your references are helpful.  I think the tricky part here was discussed by Driscoll and pointed out by Kimball when he said "Because the words were so similar (emerging and emergent), through time they sort of became interchangeably used rather than two distinct terms as they were originally."  As any lexicographer will tell you, popular usage determines popular meaning.  If there is a more specific distinction made within a smaller subset of the populace it certainly warrants mention in the article, but it seems that a separate article would be confusing due to the issue of prevailing popular usage.  It is interesting that I have found at least one website that called itself "emerging" which considered the "emergent" stream too closely associated with emergentvillage and thus too organized and conservative.  Driscoll, on the other hand, claims to be emerging but not emergent because he considers "emergent" theology too liberal.  It seems to me that you have made some good points which would lead me to think that some mention of the distinction should be made within the article but I personally fear that a separate article in an encyclopedia in which the average reader is probably not clued in to the discussion on this distinction would be confusing and perhaps even ambiguous.  I think you will agree that nearly all articles and books about the movement designed for popular consumption use the terms as essentially synonomous, but since making the distinction is important to some within the movement, it should be mentioned in the article.  You can always start your own separate article, but I strongly suspect that would lead soon to discussion about merging the two articles.  I'm fairly new to wikipedia, but it seems to me the wisest way to procede within it is to aim at making changes that will stand the test of time.  That usually involves some give and take.  Perhaps we can start a section on what a paragraph about emergent vs. emerging would look like.  That's my take anyway. I believe your input is quite valuable.--Will3935 20:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The title of the article is "The Emerging Church."  You must be suggesting that every place the term "emergents" or "emergent Christians" is used it should be replaced with the term "emerging Christians."  Am I reading you right?  Would this end the question of a second article for you?  If you think there is a significant difference would you not still see a need for a paragraph about the distinction some people find in the two terms?  I understand if you do not want to lose your anonymity, but I am still learning about this topic and would be interested in a link to the church you lead.--Niceguy2all 07:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: One point I would insert here is that since user 71.92 seems to represent a unique point of view, catering to him would give undue weight to his minority position.  I base this on having visited many emergent/emerging sites and having read many books by emerging/emergent authors.  Maybe some mention can be made of 71.92' perspective, but I question whether a radical rewrite is justified.--Loudguy 22:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I get what you are saying.  Would it be fair to say in the article that some who identify with the term "emerging" do not embrace the more liberal theological and moral positions of those they designate as "emergent?"  And would it also be fair to add that these people (such as yourself) identify with the term "emerging" largely through what it means to them in terms of contextualization, organization, missional living, and friendship evangelism?  I think both you and Loudguy have points to make but I also think we can come up with something that should please all (at least I hope so).  Perhaps I am naive but I think we are really close.--Will3935 02:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note the section I created further below regarding emergent vs. emerging as well as the section I added to the article.  Anything we need to add?.--Will3935 05:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pioneers 

message: I initally removed the reference to Rahner because my exposure to his theology was to an aspect not common among the emergent church, that of anonymous Christians.  However, in reading more about his theology, I do find some more shared characteristics with emergents and havs decided to re-include the section I deleted.   Gold Dragon 13:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dallas Willard, Tony Campolo, Brian McLaren, Steve Chalke and some others have expressed views similar to Rahner's on anonymous Christians, saying, for example, that although everyone who is saved is saved by Christ, it is not necessary to believe in Christ to be saved by him (in effect saying there are anonymous Christians). Nevertheless, you are correct that there are other similarities.--Will3935 03:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karl Rahner 

message: I changed the reference to Christ-likeness which said that "Christians" sought to emulate Christ (true of all Christians and not specific enough to the movement) to "emergents seek Christ-likeness primarily through the virtues of humility and kindness.  NiceGuy to all genuinely brought to light some flaws in this section and I think there are more parts to it that need work.  I am also going to delete one of the entries about emergent openness to other religions since the two in this section seem redundant.  I still need help on endnotes  Perhaps someone can tell me in baby steps ("Press this key and you will see this. Then enter such and such info.  Press this other combination of keys and you will see this on your screen.  Do this...").  See my comments in a section above--Will3935 23:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Life gets really busy sometimes and right now is one of those times, and probably for a few months.  Often I go for months without a wikipedia edit.  And then for a few days I totally rewrite huge sections of an article.  I find these large breaks are helpful to see how others respond to my edits and to let the page develop a little.  They are also helful to think and research about the things that I wrote and what others wrote.  Often I'll go back and totally rewrite what I wrote before because it was poorly articulate or inaccurate.  Anyway, keep up the work Will3935 and I'm sure I'll make major edits to your stuff and mine next time I'm inspired. :)  The best way to figure out referencing is to see how others have done it.  Look at my references on this article to see an example of using the template. Gold Dragon 04:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Values and Characteristics

message: Article looks like it is shaping up well. I find it and the links helpful.--
Niceguy2all 02:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting Better?

message: I am going to add a section on this topic as I understand it.  If I am wrong, someone correct me.  Regarding Stetzer, he is a respected authority and any lengthy conversation about EC seems to include some mention of his categories and then usually moves on, forgetting Stetzer.  I think this is because trying to create too many neat categories out of EC is like trying to nail several pieces of Jello side by side to the wall.  Nevertheless, I do believe some mention should be made of those who consider themselves emerging but not emergent.  I was going to add a link to theemerge.com but I see it is already there.  Thanks for your contribution 71.92.  Do you still think we should change all the references concerning "emergents" to "emerging Christians?"  As you correctly pointed out, this would not be a big deal.  I doubt anyone would object.--Will3935 04:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First 71.92 wants to change "emergent" to "emerging".  Now ifyourhappyandyouknowit wants to change "emerging" to "emergent."  Is there any end to this?  Maybe we should compromise on "emergenting" or "emergingent."  I've looked throught the history of discussion on this page and "happy" is the first one to suggest this change.  Not only this, he or she makes the change in their first day at Wikipedia.  Message to ifyourhappyandyouknowit -- We are a community here.  Another thought -- Does it seem to anyone else that the opening paragraph now looks too brief compared to the other parts of the article? Maybe it's just me.--Loudguy 23:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you about the opening paragraph, but personally, I am willing to live with it.  It seems every minor change becomes a war zone on this topic.--Will3935 01:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree about the opening paragraph, though it does seem to be a good definition. Like Will, I'm willing to live with it. --Derek Spalla 02:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Good to hear from you 71.92 (you ought to get a username).  Hope you got my email to your website (I couldn't get a timely response from the Acts 29 Network but I've submitted those changes I talked to you about in that email).  It seems to me that in spite of emotions running a little high, there is not as much difference of opinion on making the distinction as there is difference of understanding as to how large the emerging but not emergent element is.  I must confess that as I have studied the movement I have come away with the impression that the "emergent" element dominates and the element you are part of represents a smaller reformation of sorts within the movement.  Furthermore, I think it is indisputable that the two terms are essentially synonymous in popular understanding.  If this is so it should be noted in an Encyclopedia article.  Encyclopedia articles are places for informing about facts, not for addressing grievances, however valid they may be.  Certainly we should also inform about those who distinguish between the two terms.  I guess I thought we had done that but it seems that the real issue still unresolved is how big the emerging but not emergent segment is compared to the emerging and emergent segment.   You have been helpful in the past.  Perhaps you can help us on this issue of how comparatively large this emerging but not emergent segment is.  By the way, I think Loudguy was right in a way about "happy."  He/she tried to change all "emerging" references to "emergent," which seems the opposite of what you had suggested.  Nevertheless, I understand that both of you were motivated by similar concerns.  Also, I will take your word for it if you think JOK is really that prominent of a figure.  I was the one who removed him from the list (even though I find him to be a pleasant person and I left his blog linked to the article) because the Prominent Figures list was getting unreasonably long.  Gold Dragon [pro-EC] agreed with me on this and we were trying to whittle it down to size.  I added Tony Jones and Eddie Gibbs because I do think of them as prominent figures (I also think Derek was right to add Rob Bell).  I also added Grenz and Hauerwas because I think their theological influence on EC far outweighs that of any blog.  Someone else deleted Dallas Willard along the way and I more or less understand that deletion since Willard is hard to classify.  I still think Nancy Murphy's early influence on EC is a glaring omission, but just how long can the list be?  Gold Dragon had suggested that we might create a separate page just for the names of prominent figures if the list continues to grow unchecked.  That is always a possibility. --Will3935 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will, as I have looked more into this, it seems that one problem is that what 71.92 calls the "emergent stream" call themselves "emerging" as well as "emergent."  People like McLaren seem to have the most powerful voices in this movement and they are the ones driving the definition of terms.  Perhaps 71.92 and others should come up with a new term to distinguish themselves from McLaren and company.--Niceguy2all 21:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point.--Will3935 00:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  You helped a lot and your contributions were valuable.--Will3935 05:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Emergent vs. Emerging

message: Whoever added Rob Bell to the prominent figures:  I totally agree with the entry.  I had to change the wording slightly to keep the format consistent.  I hope you don't mind, but I moved him a little lower on the list.  The list is supposed to represent some vague order of prominence.  I think McLaren belongs on top of the list.  Also deleted your entry of Crouch's article since it is already listed in the favorable articles lower in the article.  Otherwise, your input was good.--Will3935 04:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper Orginization and Format