Talk:Emerging church/Archive 2

message: The article is named Emerging Church with a capital C (the capital E is inevitable), but the text pretty consistently refers to the emerging church with lower-case letters. Normally this sort of thing would be capitalized (Roman Catholic Church, Episcopal Church, Lutheran Church, etc.). Does the E/emerging C/church have a policy that its name is to be written lowercase (like k.d. lang), or is this just sloppy editing? If the former, the article should be moved to emerging church (with a note explaining that the e should be lowercase); if the latter, then we need to go through the article and capitalize it correctly. --Angr/ 14:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the article you will notice that the E/emerging C/church is a movement.  It is not an organization or a denomination.  So the capitalization is not really an issue.  There is no governing body to state whether it should be capitalized or not, so it's pretty much up to each person's discretion.  I'm sure no one would have a problem if you went through and changed them all one way or the other.Icj tlc 17:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say go by predominant usage. A skim of Google hits supports lower case: sites for those involved use it - eg ,  - as does this mainstream PBS news feature. I get a slight impression that the capitalised form is used by its critics - for instance,  and  - so opting for that isn't entirely value-free. Tearlach 18:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: OK: I restored the lower case. I agree about "postmodernity". "Missional" does have a specific meaning, which needs somehow defining - see The Missional Church and Missional Communities for a couple of descriptions. Tearlach 19:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Eurgh. I suppose yes, with a technical limitation note, like K.d. lang. Tearlach 02:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I was the one who brought it up, I'm now skeptical about the need for the technical limitation note. If there's no authority saying "We spell our name lower case", then it probably isn't necessary, especially if emerging is capitalized at the beginning of a sentence or other places where common nouns are capitalized. That seems to be the case here, where he writes "What is 'emerging church'?" but "Emerging church is...". The other thing that strikes me there is the absence of an article: it's not "The emerging church is..." or "An emerging church is..." --Angr/ 06:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: "Modern" Christians often critique the movement as adopting and conforming too easily to postmodern thought, neglecting "modern" evangelical theology, praxis, and thought.  But many "moderns" criticize the emerging church for its ongoing use of false antitheses in which anything they don't like is labeled "modern" and then mischaracterized.  McLaren's "A Generous Orthodoxy" commits this fallacy in every chapter.  A "modern" idea or practice is caricatured and then pit against the emerging church idea or practice so as to make the emerging church idea or practice come out on top.  But then when these emerging church ideas or practices are exposed as being postmodern, their responses are evasive.
This slides into POV. Who precisely are the "moderns" here? Modernist Christianity? Liberal Christianity? What's the evidence for this dispute? How can it be described objectively? Tearlach 16:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute with "moderns"

message: ::Cleaned intro. Replaced Structure and Commonality with characteristics from this version.  Supported by references.  removed Historial Context because none of that is supported in any sources.  Old Ecclesiology section didn't add anything to article.  Merely stated that there is no common stated eccelsiology; replaced with missiology.  Cleaned references.  Removed external links per wikipedia admin (turns into self-promotion of emerging churches).  Hope it's not too academic. --Artisan949 09:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Improvements 

message: List reverted. There was no consensus, only a unilateral assertion (Talk:Emerging_Church#External links) that there should be no links to emerging church sites. Such links are standard for articles on religious groupings (for instance, Anglicanism has external links to Anglican sites). This article is about the emerging church. As long as it doesn't turn into a link farm and makes some effort to focus on representative/useful sites, it's only reasonable to have links to some examples, as well as collective sites such as www.emergingchurch.info. Tearlach 01:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You weren't around before.  But the links became over ~50 long.  The churches on the list as well are not all considered EC.  No way to confirm?????  The sites are therefore not useful.  Additionally, it becomes a place for self promotion.  Maybe should not be something as broad as EC sites.  try something else.  I removed churches.  There are plenty of sites online with such lists. --70.187.148.156 10:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You weren't around before. Irrelevant: I am now. This argument is a straw man. Linkspam can be dealt with as it happens, not by banning all links. Let editors collectively decide if a particular link is useful or self-promotional. Tearlach 11:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Umm. I just removed some (IMO) linkspam. Hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes. If I am, I'm sure someone will let me know. Danlovejoy 22:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing that would really help, for the whole article, is if people stop introducing references on a "Hey, here's another thing that vaguely relates to the emerging church" basis. Links should be chosen for maximum general usefulness. References are supposed to be just that: sources that were actually used to research the article. That should be the test for inclusion. Tearlach 23:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links again

message: This page has been edited to the point of being no use.  The ideas expressed are not emerging, and with the exception of a few, the links being offered are not emerging.  The people changing this page are not expressing the views of the emerging church, and they change what those in the emerging place on this page - sorry, but all links to this page should be viewed with a very skeptical eye. - unsigned comment by 
:So explain! What do you think are the views of the emerging church? What is the evidence for your statement? All I'm seeing are arbitrary deletions of references and links to articles on the subject. Tearlach 10:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Nature of Change 

message: I have marked the page for clean up. It is in dire need of major editing. For the information it contains, it should be about 1/4 of its current length. Danlovejoy 13:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean Up - Again 

message: "the following people are often recognized as important thinkers and pioneers"
I don't want to sound harsh - but anyone would think that the 'emerging church' started in North America. This list of people, while influential in the thinking of many people, are all from North America. What about people like Dave Tomlinson (The Post-Evangelical, SPCK 1995), Pete Ward (Liquid Church), Mike Riddell (Threshold of the Future, SPCK, 1998), Alan Jamieson (A Churchless Faith) and the list goes on... Perhaps we ought to avoid this section with the title 'pioneers' and be consistent with the egalitarian leadership culture and not put up a list of people like this. Perhaps the bibliography or references used to create the article is where it ought to be left?
--entheos 03:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pioneers in the Emerging Church movement 

message: It sure sounds to me as if Quakerism shows most of the features mentioned in this article:
* 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.  The goal in this area is generally to make the church more attractive to the unchurched.
::No. Quaker meetings are fairly stereotyped in form.
* A minimalist and decentralized organizational structure.
::Yes. Quaker meetings are loosely supervised by committees and "elders." There is no real central authority; the closest thing to it is a person referred to as the "clerk" of the meeting.
* A flexible approach to theology whereby individual differences in belief and morality are accepted within reason.
::Yes. In fact there is no creed and "individual revelation" is accepted and is assumed to occur during Meeting for Worship.
* 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.
::Yes. One slogan is "Theology divides, service unites."
* 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
::Well, there is certainly no attempt to find a "single, valid interpretation" of the Bible—or anything else.
* A continual re-examination of theology.
::Yes
* A high value placed on creating communities built out of the creativity of those who are a part of each local body.
::Yes; the phrase "members of each other" is characteristic.
Dpbsmith (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quakerism?