Talk:Emerging church

message: In the first paragraph, see: "irrespective of Christian religious traditions." Is this possible, given the nature of socialisation? Is this desirable, given the post-modern mosaic? Is this an accurate portrayal of the EC, therefore?  The "clean sheet" idea is perhaps the most dangerous ecclesial idea, giving full reign to unacknowledged paradigms. Perhaps, this is a valid critique then... Hyper3 (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tradition 

message: Especially in the "Definitions and terminology" section, there is an over-use of quotes. Basically, it strings together a list of quotes rather than synthesizing the information and presenting it in an encyclopedic fashion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.63.141 (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many block quotes 

message: This entire section is a bit of a mess. I've merged and cleaned a few subsections, but lots remains to be done. The original author appears to have summarized and represented the arguments of a few sources to fill up space. It's buzzword heavy, unsubstantiated, and tendentious. For example, are there other Christians who desire to imitate the life of Jesus, transform secular society, live communally, welcome outsiders, and be generous and creative? If so, how can these values be specific to the emerging church?
What do y'all think can be done about this section? TrickyApron (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Values and Characteristics 

message: Spotfixer (talk) is disgruntled in an edit war over the Rick Warren and Saddleback pages, and is currently engaged in disruptive edits of this page.  He is currently reverting consolidation, dead-link removal and link consolidation as undoing "whitewashing". Unless he takes an active part on the topic of the Emerging Church, one may assume his edits are part of his tantrum over the Rick Warren page.--Lyonscc (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Its annoying to see perfectly good editing being reverted; last night I looked at both parties' edits and came to the same conclusion. Why someone would want to revert the discussion is beyond me. It is relevant to the progress of this article, which has taken on the dimensions of a quarrel from elsewhere. As spotfixer says, whitewashing is bad. Hyper3 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I disagree to the reason "his tantrum", otherwise your criticism is correct. (It's generally better to pinpoint errors in the editings, not perceived errors in a person). ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive Editing by [[Special:Contributions/Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer|talk]]) 

message: :Mark Driscoll, one of the heavy critics, is "charismatic Calvinist" (according to himself). It seems his criticism regards that he interpret the "emergent theologicians" as questioning the "substitutionary atonement", and "Gods knowledge of the future" (which regards the philosophical preconditions for the Calvinist system). It seems the citation of him already exists in his article, so here it could be shortened. I propose similarly identifying other critics of the Emerging church. I'm not convinced that Driscoll's distinction between Emerging and Emergent is valid, since the 4th branch he describes (see [Here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58fgkfS6E-0]) cannot automatically be regarded as distinct from the Emerging church. That invention belongs to Driscoll. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct myslef: Don Carson below, also distinguishes between Emerging and Emergent. Since Don Carson is a smart learned guy, I hereby accept the distinction. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Driscol

message: :Don Carson seemingly a Calvinist too. His criticism is about letting in non-believers before them converted, while he himself propones letting in people that are already converts. Methodological criticism, and also some annoyment about the discussions on dogma and perceived christian foundations-something. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 12:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Carson also criticises tendencies of strong Postmodernism within Emerging church. This is a heavy philosophical criticism, that should be elaborated on more – his criticism is simply stronger than that of Driscoll. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Also rubs Carson's skin backwards by providing philosophies that (seems to?) contradict John Calvin's view of Scripture. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Don Carson

message: :Scot McKnight, professor of religious studies at North Park Theological Seminary in Chicago, Illinois.
::Pro, not con! And anabaptist.
::Scot McKnight attacking (cont.) what he calls "Neo-reformeds", answer here: "Paleo- and Neo-Reformed", by Darryl G. Hart. The target for McKnight's attack seems to be some young Calvinists (!). ... said: Rursus (bork²) 19:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A John Hammett making a very readable neutral review on the conflict between Emerging church and reaction. A must-read (free! gratis!). ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Others

message: I would like to add some input into the page about centered set membership.
This is what I wrote, but I was told that it did not fit in so please feel free to edit or give details as to what would be an acceptable entry into the Emerging church page
===Centered-Set===
The movement appropriates set theory as a means of understanding a basic change in the way the Christian church thinks about itself as a group.  Set theory is a concept in mathematics that allows an understanding of what numbers belong to a group, or set.  A bounded set would describe a group with clear "in" and "out" definitions of membership.  The Christian church has largely organized itself as a bounded set, those who share the same beliefs and values are in the set and those who disagree are outside.Paul Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books (1994).
The centered set does not limit membership to pre-conceived boundaries.  Instead a centered set is conditioned on a centered point.  Membership is contingent on those who are moving toward that point.  The set is now dependent on relation to an extrinsic point.  Elements moving toward that point are part of the set, elements moving away from that point are outside of the set.  As a centered-set Christian membership would be dependent on moving toward the central point of Jesus.  A Christian is then defined by their focus and movement toward Christ rather than a limited set of shared beliefs and values.Paul Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books (1994).
John Wimber utilized the centered set understanding of membership in his Vineyard Churches.  The centered set theory of Christian Churches came largely from missional anthropologist Paul Hiebert.  The centered set understanding of membership allows for a clear vision of the focal point, the ability to move toward that point without being tied down to smaller diversions, a sense of total egalitarianism with respect for differing opinions, and an authority moved from individual members to the existing center.Phyllis Tickle, The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books (2008).
:I have put it back, as I think it is a very accurate observation that this movement  thinks and talks in these terms. If it is clunky, we should edit. We should also find some responses to Hiebert, as there are a number of faults with the argument, not the least of which are reducing the church to a diagram (reductionism!), blueprint thinking and the inappropriate use of models. The church is complex, and not  subject to simplistic arguments! I would ask the author to work on the middle paragraph to make it clearer. Hyper3 (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centered-Set 

message: The movement appropriates set theory as a means of understanding a basic change in the way the Christian church thinks about itself as a group.  Set theory is a concept in mathematics that allows an understanding of what numbers belong to a group, or set.  A bounded set would describe a group with clear "in" and "out" definitions of membership.  The Christian church has largely organized itself as a bounded set, those who share the same beliefs and values are in the set and those who disagree are outside.Paul Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books (1994).
The centered set does not limit membership to pre-conceived boundaries.  Instead a centered set is conditioned on a centered point.  Membership is contingent on those who are moving toward that point.  The set is now dependent on relation to an extrinsic point.  Elements moving toward that point are part of the set, elements moving away from that point are outside of the set.  As a centered-set Christian membership would be dependent on moving toward the central point of Jesus.  A Christian is then defined by their focus and movement toward Christ rather than a limited set of shared beliefs and values.Paul Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books (1994).
John Wimber utilized the centered set understanding of membership in his Vineyard Churches.  The centered set theory of Christian Churches came largely from missional anthropologist Paul Hiebert.  The centered set understanding of membership allows for a clear vision of the focal point, the ability to move toward that point without being tied down to smaller diversions, a sense of total egalitarianism with respect for differing opinions, and an authority moved from individual members to the existing center.Phyllis Tickle, The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books (2008).
:I have put it back, as I think it is a very accurate observation that this movement  thinks and talks in these terms. If it is clunky, we should edit. We should also find some responses to Hiebert, as there are a number of faults with the argument, not the least of which are reducing the church to a diagram (reductionism!), blueprint thinking and the inappropriate use of models. The church is complex, and not  subject to simplistic arguments! I would ask the author to work on the middle paragraph to make it clearer. Hyper3 (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Centered-Set

message: There is no warrant to add Heresy as a category.  EVERY religious movement within Christianity can be classified 'heresy' by another movement.  Just because Google searches can link the two (particularly since most of the sources are Reformed blogs) is no justification.
By definition, "heresy" is based on the degree (or lack) of orthodoxy of a particular belief.  The emerging church is a broad category that encompasses a number of beliefs (on which there is no agreed 'set').  Now - if you want to choose a specific belief and tag it as heresy (with ample documentation), feel free to go to the page for that specific belief (ex: antinomianism) and tag it as such.  However, tagging a particular movement as heresy is contrary to the definition of the word, and - without ample documentation - inflammatory.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a category It is a tangently related subject that is not expounded upon in he article. A textbook example of "See also"use.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You've provided no justification for the "relatedness" ("see also"-ness?) of Heresy.  Its inclusion is basically a back-door route of original research.  Again, you might as well tag the pages of every Christian movement as heresy, because it is rather certain that someone with a blog considers it as such.  Please make your case for inclusion of "see also: Heresy" for a Christian movement (rather than a particular doctrine).  Movements are not heresy - doctrines are.  The Emerging Church is a movement not a doctrine.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A movement in opposition (theologically) to orthodoxy. What again is "heresy"?--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (EC)A perfect example of original research.  Heresy is "proposing some unorthodox change to an established system of belief, especially a religion, that conflicts with the previously established opinion of scholars of that belief such as canon."  The emerging church movement is quite eclectic, and one cannot say "here is the established system of belief of the ecm" - because it is not a denomination.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: .To help connect the dots.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And you will notice that this section is missing a multitude of citations and clarifications.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So fix them. I connected the dots and went down the rabbit hole with you, showed the relatedness, now please consider reverting.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Let´s keep moving the bar. Your sly charges of POV pushing on your talkpage lead me to believe that you are not acting in good faith.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To this point, you've not offered proof that 1) definitionally, the ECM should be tagged as 'see also: heresy'; 2) That such inclusion is a notable, verifiable claim (beyond the claim that can be made about any Christian movement); or 3) that such tagging is an improvement to the article.  I will assume good faith if you allow others editors to comment on this potentially controversial addition, rather than pushing a particular controversial point of view w/o waiting for community involvement.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See also is not tagging. It is not even a POV, in the Wikipedia sense of the word. It is a point of view that it should be included. Please also see your talk page to address the potential personal attack. Free free to clarify if it was your intention or just a coincidence.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a coincidence (see my talk page).  See also is not category tagging, but it IS tagging (in the sense that you are tying idea A to idea B via a "see also" inference).  I have offered you a solution - via tagging 'see also: Heresy' to specific doctrines you have 'heretical' documentation for.  However, the ECM is not a doctrine, so it cannot be heresy (any more than the Presbyterian church or the Methodist Church or the Catholic Church can be "heresy").  Specific doctrines, yes, entire movements (by definition), no.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have resolved this on your talkpage. We would welcome others´ opinions about it. I will abide by any concensus that is reached.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Lyonscc. "See also" implies a substantive link; I do not agree with much emerging church rhetoric, and do believe that there is some heresy involved; however this is a point of view that can't be substantiated by reference to neutral observers. It is also hard to pin down, as each individual may not be a good example of the movement. Could New religious movement be an alternative? Hyper3 (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like there is no concensus to add it.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Heresy to "See also" 

message: I removed the section about the Emerging movement being "syncrestistic", the only reference in that section was to a book about post-modern Christianity published in 1994 which does not deal with this movement.  The criticism has certainly been made about many post-modern religious movements (and rightly so in my opinion) but I doubt that any source would make this claim, especially any credible source.  Also, I think the word intended is "syncretic", but now I'm just splitting hairs.  Paddingtonjbear (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syncretistic [sic]  

message: I wonder how possible it is to de-weasel this article.  The Emerging church is by definition difficult to define and lacks consensus.  I've added a couple of citations to support valid claims, but I'm not comfortable removing the weasel words and I'm not entirely sure they should be removed.  Anyone else have an opinion on this?  There are only a few missing citations left in the Definitions and Terminology section, one of which I think is really original research (although I do think it is a valid claim). Paddingtonjbear (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Words 

message: This article has become a recent cite of edit warring.  This is not ok.  Anonymous IP editors and single use accounts have been churning it, by constantly deleting and re-adding text which either is designed to make McLaren look good, or bad.  Problematic is that these edits are done without any edit history at all.  I am deleting the controversy section, and it can be re-added only when there is agreement on what it should say.  Please discuss it here, and not by back-and-forth on the article.  Tb (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: The grammar issues in this section make it nearly unreadable. Perhaps the worst example is "Emerging Churches, draw on this synthetic model or transcendent model of contextual theology, seek to have a high view towards the Bible and the Christian people, as well as having a high view of culture, humanity, and justice."  Also confusing is the passage "The Emerging Church has charged many Conservative Evangelical Churches of withdrawal from involvement from contextual mission and seeking contextualisation of the gospel."
Of lesser concern is the question of spelling of certain words, eg. criticised v criticized. A change to be consistent with the overall style of the English wikipedia would improve readability.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.210.8 (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this article has used British spellings (see WP:ENGVAR for the rules), and it should continue to use them.  The grammar problems could certainly use work, I agree!  Tb (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the Missional living section 

message: In the emerging church article, a statement in the intro describe the emerging movement that "transcends such "modernist" labels of "conservative" and "liberal," calling the movement, a "conversation" to emphasize its developing and decentralized nature, its vast range of standpoints and its commitment to dialogue."
Thus, in the intro paragraph, neither liberal nor conservative should be used as labels to describe the movement. These labels are broad, and under the emerging church movement are both "liberal" and "conservative" leaning voices with regards to theology and politics. Liberal Christianity has a more specific meaning within the 20th century.
: You are misreading the text, which is making two separate points.  First, the movement "can be described" in those ways, and second, proponents say that the movement transcends such labels. It is not inconsistent at all to say that the movement can be described in a variety of ways, but that its proponents often disfavor those labels. You are correct that Liberal Christianity has a specific meaning, but it is that specific meaning that is often meant when referring to the emerging church, particularly its ideas about engagement with the "modern world", etc. Tb (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the balance of including both a categorical analysis, and why some resist categories. It sets up the article well. Hyper3 (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative vs Liberal labels for the emerging church 

message: What exactly is Emergent Village? Multiple external links to one website only, no article about it on wikipedia, and no description of it in this article. As a result, I have no clue what it is, how it does or does not relate to the emerging church, or why I might care. Which makes it seem like some petty grudge carried over to wikipedia, complete with shameless self-promotion. Clarify and source it or dump it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.252.52.125 (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Emergent Village"? 

message: Under the section Definitions and Terminology, subsection Similar Labels, there is an issue with the last paragraph which begins "Marcus Borg defines..." The quotation marks in the paragraph leave it unclear which words Borg said and which words are not his. Will someone refer back to the cited source to determine where the quotations ought to go? Thank you. Ultimateteddy (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I happen to have Borg's book The Heart of Christianity in front of me.  I have tried to clarify the quotation from his book that you mention from the main article.  Hope it is better now. Cwgmpls (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Editorial Issues 

message: Seem to be a heavy weighting of reviewers of the movement rather than source documents. There are often statements in this article that seem to be reactions to something. There are references to DA Carson in the terminology section who appears to be a critic of the movement (though a "fair and balanced" one per one Amazon reviewer). There is some theological goobledy-gook (at least this MDiv cannot understand it).  Can we mark this as potentially biased?   
rchaswms 04:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased?  

message: It seems this article is pretty one sided for an issue that is quite controversial in Christianity.  There should be a section or perhaps another article addressing controversy with the idea of the emergent church.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.222.95.59 (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of "Controversy" and "Criticism" sections in articles is discouraged, but should be worked into the body of the article, rather than calling it out separately.  At one time, this article had a controversy/criticism section, but the editors of the article have taken the particular beliefs/practices which are controversial in the ECM and woven them into the article.  What beliefs/practices do you believe are missing (and are adequately, verifiably documented)?--Lyonscc (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is one-sided. How can we address this? There are a few critical books to quote. Hyper3 (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Apologizing in advance if I have not posted this in the correct manner or in the correct place.
This is a fascinating topic.  The article is unreadable and boring.  How can that be?  It is as if someone tried to use the most vague, polysyllabic language to discourage any vibrancy of communication and make the whole topic uninteresting.  
Yet what could be more interesting than a spontaneous regeneration of Christian ideas taking new forms and new shapes, outside the control of churches?
Oh, well.  Not trying to be a troll here.  Just saying.  I am a lifelong devotee of these subjects and I have 2 graduate degrees and I gave up after reading a couple of paragraphs and scanning the rest.  Not worth trying to find the nuggets of meaning buried in the bad writing.
Allison14 (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence that bugs me (and I think this fits under this readability comment) is, "There has been a strong bias in the US to ignore a history to the emerging church that preceded the US Emergent organization." This is unverified and comes off as a Brit crying in his or her beer. In fact, the emerging church takes many ideas from what we know about the 1st century church. It's not like Christianity was invented in the UK. Would anyone mind if I simply deleted that "strong bias" sentence? GaryGo (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  General revision needed to create readable prose 

message: This article is a lot of fulsome spam. It does not mention the bad logic and bad morals of the alleged church.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.10.231 (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam  

message: The "See Also" link to Narnia is irrelevant. Narnia is a set of fantasy writings from another historical period than the Emerging or Emergent church. There is no demonstration of significant influence one way or another. Recommendation: Delete the "See As" Narnia link.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.30.82 (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be interested to contemplate the mind of whoever claimed that 'Narnia' is relevant to this article. MaynardClark (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also, Narnia 

message: I think some section on WHY there IS such a thing as POST-Evangelicalism, where Christendom's histories have seen a broad array of operational uses of the word 'Evangelical' - and groups called 'The Evangelical Church' in Deutschland are broadly different from how most Americans reframe what is coming from what is called 'Evangelical' in America.
The late Dr. Francis Schaeffer had talked often of living in a post-Christian world.  Is there a body of reflection on energetic efforts to salvage the word 'Evangelical' for current, contemporary usage? MaynardClark (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: WHY POST-Evangelical?

message: Substituted at 14:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Emerging church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928141414/http://www.cnnw.com/articles/articles04-05-3.html to http://www.cnnw.com/articles/articles04-05-3.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111021064907/http://blog.sojo.net/2010/04/13/the-emerging-church-brand-the-good-the-bad-and-the-messy/ to http://blog.sojo.net/2010/04/13/the-emerging-church-brand-the-good-the-bad-and-the-messy/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704215055/http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/1116 to http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/1116
*Added  tag to http://www.emergentvillage.org/about-information/values-and-practices
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: No. No no no. Post-modernism leaves no space for logos. You're all asleep, folks. Wake up!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:12C1:44F5:98AD:A0F2:DC8D:827E (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  post-modernism and logos what?