Talk:Emerging church/Introduction 2

HELL IS REAL!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.177.173 (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Introduction Worries

My apologies to everyone concerned for my part in the recent trend towards a revert war on this article. It stops here. However, there is an issue that needs to be resolved, and we need to work together to resolve it. It is time for actual discusson on this matter. So that we can begin following Wikipedia policy once again, instead of charging off and changing everything based on our own opinions, we need to come to a concensus on this information before it is changed again. My final edit here will be the addition of the disputed article tag, after which I propose we call a truce and halt editing of this section until a resolution can be achieved. --WestonWyse

My apologies likewise. I had started a discussion on the gross articulation of the emerging church here several weeks ago. I allowed more than seven days to pass. Had not heard anything from anyone and changed the needed information. Since, I have been accused of making unnecessary changes and my changes have been reverted several times. I prefer to site sources to prove our points instead of the you say, I say approach. Likewise, I appreciate the dialogue, the attempts to provide an accurate description of this occurrence in the Church, and for the steps recently taken to resolve this matter. --Artisan949

Artisan949, I'm puzzled when you say you "had not heard anything from anyone" within seven days of your May 4th proposals. I responded the next day and WestonWyse within three days. Perhaps you are new to wikipedia and not familiar with the page history function. In any case, it looks like we've got a multi-way discussion going on now, which I am mischievously going to describe as a conversation. technopilgrim 22:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for my delay here. I am busy with another project at the moment so please give me some time. I have not forgotten what I have seemed to have started here. Also, if you would like to read by academic work on the emerging church, please email me at aaron at thevoiz dot com. I am more than happy to share and would actually be beneficial since I find myself repeating a lot of what I already present in my research and the 100 or so pages I've written on the EC. Also, I would like to keep in mind that defining the EC is difficult, if not impossible at this point. I am for describing it as accurrately as we can, but we must realize this may not be possible. Our chances may be increased if we actually think of the EC occurrence occurring on several levels, degrees, etc. Sure you have a aspect of the EC who believes it is all about candles and style. I would like to suggest though that I do not believe that this was the original intent. Thus we may want to approach the EC with a multi-layered description instead of a "we figured out what it is and its only this" approach. --Artisan949

Now, I would like to officially re-open discussion on the following specific points:

The Emerging Church is an incipient movement

Movement is the appropriate categorizational term for the Emerging Church (see definition 2b). Conversation means an oral exchange of ideas, so EC leaders talking about EC things is a conversation, but the Emerging Church is a religious movement. The EC use of the term "conversation", therefore, is slang. As Wikipedia is for an encyclopedic collection of information, the use of this term in this context is unjustified. It could, however be noted at some point in the introduction or elsewhere in the article that "conversation" is the preferred term among EC leaders, along with an explanation of what it means in this context (elsewhere would seem more appropriate, in order to keep the introduction brief and to the point). --WestonWyse

The Emerging Church is considered a conversation, which some arguably also consider a burgeoning movement. It can be argued of the aforementioned definition of the term "movement," that the EC does not qualify under its meaning for the very reason that it lacks the "organization" relevent to movements. As the article appropriately mentions, the EC is decentralized. I personally do not reject the notion that some assume the EC is a movement, however, as part of the EC I sense we are still in conversation mode. Many would agree, including Brian McLaren, prominent emerging church thinker:

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20420

Like this article indicated, the debate whether or not the EC is a movement or a conversation could continue indefinitely. Therefore, I propose we communicate at a minimum the EC is considered both and this should be done upfront, preferably in the Inroduction if there is to be any. Additionally we could include the other "labels" of the EC outside movement and conversation, since possibly the EC is all of the above. --Artisan949

I am puzzled. Just because a movement lacks a central organization doesn't mean it isn't a movement. Consider the list of art movements -- which of these movements had a central organization, or any organization at all? None probably. Which is why the Webster's definition of "social movement" makes no reference to organization, or lack thereof. Humpty Dumpty asserted that a word "means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less". While comforting to Humpty, it is most puzzling to Alice. Let me also add that I certainly hope that the debate on the meaning of these words could not "go on indefinitely" as you suggest. We could agree to use a dictionary, for instance, or failing that, an edit war. But I really don't think the debate would be endless!

A proposal: Rather than use "conversation" in some non-standard sense in the beginning of the article, can we add a section later in the article to explain why it is that EC folks consider "movement" inappropriate and "conversation" appropriate (assuming that EC types generally believe this to be true)? There's probably something in there that would give us insight into EC thinking. If there is such a thing as EC thinking. (Meant not as an insult, but reflecting the concern that different EC thinkers may not agree on how such a section should be written). technopilgrim 22:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, the EC does have organization, just not traditional orginization. It does have leaders, just not centralized leadership. It does have aims and policy, just not standardized or enforced rules. Even if a movement required these things -- which as technopilgrim points out, it does not -- the Emerging Church does have them. --WestonWyse 15:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

In addition, McLaren's definition -- "a group of people who are talking about the Gospel and church and mission" -- does describe a conversation, but applies only to meetings of emergent churches, groups, or leaders. Hundreds of churches worldwide altering their doctrine, theology, and worship around common goals and ideals is not "a group of people who are talking." A discussion among the leaders of those churches regarding the changes being made would be a conversation. Churches enacting those changes would be a movement. --WestonWyse 22:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree on this point that there is organization to the EC -self-organization. I understand your point, Weston. It would serve us well to look into how sociologist describe movement and see if the EC meets what a social or religious movement is. I just do not feel it's of intellectual integrity to define something clearly aa a movement based on a personal perception. No one, critic or suppoter of the EC, has explained why they see this occurrence in contemporary Christianity as a movement, especially in light that many "EC'ers" have made the claim that the occurrence is still a conversation. I think is important to not describe the EC as how any of us perceive it, but how it describes itself. Also, I am considering your point on "churches enacting those changes would be a movement." Again, I want to ask what source supports this? Second, this is problematic as well since no one knows how many churches are indeed "emerging." I suggest, in the US, that the conversation/movement is smaller than we think. A lot smaller at this point in time based on my recent work. --Artisan949

Well, being that it is a movement and that it deals with religious issues, Princeton says that it is a religious movement. Oddly enough, since the movement has no goals (which is arguable in itself and I'll discuss below), they say that it's not a social movement. And this is an encyclopedia. As such, this article is not about how the EC desribes itself, but what the EC is, as defined by the English language. And the english language, as I've shown above, defines it as a movement: specifically as a religious movement. Defining something as it describes itself is the epitome of Point Of View writing. The article on the Nazi Party does not decribe the Nazis as they described themselves. The article on George W. Bush does not describe the President as he describes himself. The article on the Emerging Church should describe the movement factually and fully, not merely as its leaders describe it. --WestonWyse 23:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

>>For a person wanting to hold open dialog, you sure are wanting emerging to be called "a movement" - why? agenda on your end? just because a dictionary says "a movement is this" does not mean we "must" take it as solid - almost everyone in the conversation calls it a conversation, when those outside desire to call us what we do not call ourselves, that is considered "labeling" us, and that is so not cool - i care less what those "outside" have to say, they do not define what i see, express and relate to daily. ginkworld

Actually, just because a dictionary says "a movement is this" does mean that is the definition. Just because a certain group of people are using words in creative and new ways does not mean that encyclopedias should pick up the confusing and misleading verbiage. And as I have pointed out before, this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for EC propaganda. So yes, I do have an agenda: to keep this article academic in nature, and not self-promoting. Anything less is unacceptable in this medium. --WestonWyse 22:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Just want to add a couple of thoughts here...If the EC is a movement, it certainly is not one in the traditional sense. There are a number of very good reasons for this. Here are a few suggestions: 1) There is no clear driving mission, the civil rights movement had the goal of achieving racial equality, if the EC has such a goal it should be able to be articulated. 2) While there is some organization, there is not organizational focus, that is, I am going to join the Emerging Church movement. The dictionary definition most appropriate for the way movement is used in the definition is: a series of organized activities working toward an objective; also : an organized effort to promote or attain an end <the civil rights movement>. EC is more like a recognition of a trend or a fad, than a "movement". It is an anti-institutional trend, but can one say it is an anti-institutional movement? I don't think so. Clearly something is happening, but if it is a movement it is in the very early stages, lacks a leader, and a driving mission. charleswear

Even though Emergent Village has preferred "conversation" instead of "movement", other networks around the world are seeing what we could define a movement and are more comfortable with the word. Def. "A rapid mulitplication of indigenous churches planting churches that sweeps through a people group or population segment" (David Garrison). --tallskinnykiwi

So the mission is: "the rapid multiplication of indigenous churches planting churches sweeping through people groups and population segments"? Is that what the mission is, or is that what is happening everywhere but in the US? charleswear

1) There is no clear driving mission, the civil rights movement had the goal of achieving racial equality, if the EC has such a goal it should be able to be articulated. There are goals inherent in the EC. People just tend to spend a lot of time arguing about what they are (hence this discussion). Are you actually trying to say that the whole of the Emerging Church is just a bunch of people aimlessly doing things for no real reason? What about "seeking to love our world in the Spirit of Jesus Christ"? Or "to join in the activity of God in the world wherever we are able, so that God’s dreams for our world come true"? "To help every believer answer the question, What does it mean for me to have a part in God's Kingdom"? To "shake off any residual 'leave it to beaver' orientation and begin swimming (even with a paddleboard) within the postmodern culture"? To "really trust the power of the gospel and learn to communicate it with authenticity, because for postmodern people, authenticity is primary"? "Letting the life of Christ in us become evident to all those around us," and to "demonstrate, live out, and practice our life in Jesus through all that we do and in the person we are choosing to become"? Those are all goals fo the EC, at least according to Emergent Village, Emerging Church Network (which, incidentally, calls it a movement), EmergingChurch.org, and EmergingLife.org. --WestonWyse 13:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, all of those missions sound like nice slogans, but how are they distinguishable in any way from the "institutional church" or from the evangelical movement, or the pentacostal movement, or the foursquare movement, etc. Am I making sense here? Because we throw in postmodern people does that make this a movement. I am not sure that the "emerging church" is really doing much to plant churches among postmodern people....yet. So, as a "movement" I am not sure it is doing very well....The focus used to be on generational focus, boomers, busters, gen-x, etc. then it shifted to cultural focus, modern, postmodern, etc. I think the reason that so many folks call it the emerging church (other than the relationship to emergent theories of organization, chaordicity, etc.) is that we have noticed that something is happening that is different. But most movements have begun with a "leader". This "movement" if it is one, is more spontaneous, viral, happening everywhere at the same time on a small and large scale and with nearly a complete lack of centralization. And by the way, why is the word incipient used, it appears that it is just another word for "emerging". So The Emerging Church is an emerging movement? I am not trying to pick a fight or prolong the discussion, but, geeze, let's not settle for language that doesn't truly describe the phenomenon that is "the emerging church." charleswear

2) While there is some organization, there is not organizational focus, that is, I am going to join the Emerging Church movement. Joining has nothing to do with orginaztional focus; it has only to do with memberships. I don't believe anyone ever "joined" the Civil Rights Movement, either. They may have joined the NAACP, but I don't think there was ever a non-profit named "Civil Rights Movement". It was a movement, not an organization. One could actually argue that if there was an organization, thet would exclude it from being a movement (although the dricing force behind the organization's goals could still be a movement). --WestonWyse 13:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, I want to call us back to the fact that we could discuss whether the EC is conversation or a movement indefinitely. Do we all agree that both should be discussed in this article? Preferably, why it could be considered either/or/both. I also want to reitterate that we shouldn't call it one or the other in the Introduction. --Artisan949

Except that there hasn't been one defendable reason why the definition of "conversation" fits the Emerging Church, other than "EC leaders prefer it." Nor has there been one defendable reason why "movement" shouldn't be used, other than "EC leaders don't like it." Categorizationally (which is what encyclopedias do), and using definitions accepted within the English language (since this is the English language Wikipedia), the Emerging Church is a movement. It's not really open to discussion or argument on this level, because those are the definitions of the words in question, as accepted by English scholars worldwide.

I agree that the EC use of "conversation" should be mentioned in the article, and other examples of EC slang should be included as well. But in the introduction, we should stick with English words being used as their academic definitions indicate. And we should also provide actual information. We can't just say "The Emerging Church is an incipient ecumenical thing (see below)". There is no reason to neuter the effectiveness of the introduction to this article merely because the EC leaders are attempting to redefine words within the English language. Let them push to change the accepted meanings of those words, and if in a decade or so they are successful and "conversation" has become synonymous with "movement", then change the article to use the new accepted definitons. Not before. --WestonWyse 22:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The online dictionaries you've provided cannot be considered "academic." If we want to have an "academic" about this article, we should turn to the experts on social and religious movements. This is what my point has been. If we are going to call something a movement, provide the sources (not online dictionary sources - not academic enough or at all). Many could argue Weston that you use modernistic slang by using the term movement. Please site some experts for your argument. There are no experts in "conversation," so best that I can do is argue that this is how the EC, in part, self-describes itself. That is an important point and fact. I will also reitterate that the INTRO should be a summary of what is provided, an abstract of sorts rather than trying to sum up an expression of the church in one sentence. That WOULD BE an academic approach. (Sidenote: Some think it a movement, others a conversation, others a fad... in all honesty who cares. I just want to capture the Emerging Church in a fair and balanced light that is of intellectual integrity). --Artisan949

Princeton University "cannot be considered 'academic'"? I think scholars worldwide would disagree. Nevertheless, from the second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, v 10, p. 35: Movement, 6.a. "A course or series of actions on the part of a body of persons, moving or tending more or less continuously towards some special end. Often with defining word prefixed, as in the Oxford movement." I fail to see how using dictionary definitions of words could be considered jargon or non-academic. And capturing the EC by using its internal slang is neither a fair, balanced, nor with intergrity. Such an article will eventually be deleted for NPOV content. --WestonWyse 22:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia, "When reporting on objective facts, Wikipedia articles should cite primary and secondary sources whenever they exist." Reliable sources Your dictionaries, even reputable ones, are considered Tertiary sources by academic standards and by Wikipedia. Previously, I meant to communicate that dictionaries are not as academic as primary and secondary sources. Go to the experts. I would imagine if we want to use the term "movement" (which we've already agreed needs to be utilized somewhere) then we must also provide the 1st/2nd sources which refer to the EC as a movement and better yet, should proabably rely on sociological experts in social/religious movements. So clearly, for myself, this is NOT about EC "slang." This about providing reliable information about the EC based on reliable sources. Frankly, I do not care what you think the EC is or is not. I do care what has been published on this subject and intend to provide that information and THAT INFORMATION ONLY. I sense we are moving towards an impasse unless you (WestonWyse) can understand this academic/encyclopedic approach. Show me the sources, please. --Artisan949 10:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Why not begin by saying something like "it is difficult to define EC because one of the things the EC tends to do is want to redefine the meaning of words to suit themselves. Thus, whilst according to normal use of the word, EC could be described as a movement because blah, blah, blah, those within the 'movement' tend to dislike this term, as, whilst accurate from the perspective of a dictionary definition, it does not reflect blah, blah, blah". This is a little more useful than the previous compromise suggested as it gives the reader, especially those outside the movement, more information upon which to reach their own conclusions. [Martin] 2nd June

>>I know, let's see it as a "conversation on the move" - one of the hardest things to do is define what we are and how we are getting to where we are getting to :) No one will ever be "happy" with what anyone calls anything. Seeking to define simply causes others to defend what they are at, and not move to the point others desire them to be - if "movement" is wrong, cool - if "conversation" is wrong, cool - we then need to find a word that shares where we are and what we are striving to do - for me, at this time, "conversation" is the best - "movement" demands "leaders" and people who "speak for us all" and in this reality, that will not be found. There is no one person we calim as "leader" so a "movement" is impossible. ginkworld

Nowhere has it been said that movements require leaders that speak for the entire group. If that was the case, then the Civil Rights Movement could not have been a movement, because not every soul involved listened to Dr. King, nor to Malcom X. And although they do not speak for every person involved, the EC movement does have leaders, so that argument is invalid. --WestonWyse 22:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

--> {New post-er here, disclaimers: I finally broke down and created an account so I could jump in here, as suggested by Aaron. I'm a little new to Wiki participation, so if I breach etiquette, pls point it out to me.} I'm just going to jump in without being up to speed on /all/ the dicussion, but this question of whether or not EC is a movement is something in which I've been interested, and something I've written about elsewhere. I see that those inside EC don't want to be called a movement because it implies too much structrue and heirarchy, whereas those outside (obviously generalizing) see it as a movement regardless. I believe the fundamental issue is that EC is the first fundamentally /postmodern/ religious movement, whereas all that have gone before it are /modern/ movements. In the article at the external link, I provide a chart contrasting some /likely/ characteristic differences between a modern and a postmodern movement, and EC /does/ fit the notion of a movement, with the understanding that this /doesn't/ completely jive with movements of the past. I recommend that the definition call it a movement, with an added paragraph to say something to effect, "Internally, the emerging church prefers to call itself a 'conversation' rather than a 'movement', largely to differentiate that as a movement it is much more destructured and non-heirarchical as contrasted with other religious movements in history."

within the English-speaking Protestant church

This is untrue, as the EC does reach to other languages and to some Catholic circles. (Are other, non-Christian religions involved in the movement?) But judging from the list of resources and websites provided within the article, the EC is primarily, but not exclusively, within this group. If this statement is inaccurate, please let us know. --WestonWyse

I do not understand the relevance of placing the EC in an "english-speaking, protestant" context. Of higher importance to me, "english-speaking" seems irrelevant. What is our support for using such a term? Where are our sources? Who in the emerging church or those of scholarship on the emerging church utilize this term? Should provide or delete it. I think we will be unable to prove that it is primarily an "english-speaking" occurrence. --Artisan949

I originally added "English-speaking" based on the conclusions I formed in about an hour of websurfing, while trying to find an indication that the movement is found outside the English-speaking world. Just now in following the new inter-wiki link to the German wikipedia article on "Emerging Church", I see that that article describes the emerging church movement as having "started out in American, then spread quickly to England, Australia, and Holland, and now is represented by a small vanguard in Germany". This is an excellent and useful description & I agree we should drop "English speaking" and instead insert this description. It's helpful to know where the phenomenon originated, and where (and ideally when) it spread to other locations. technopilgrim 22:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll second that. It sounds like a much better and more specific statement anyway. --WestonWyse 15:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the guy who has written the German article. I came to the conclusion that the English Alternative Worship movement is more like a parallel developement. It's not so much influenced by the American forms of Emerging Church. So my description is not 100% accurate. Even though I would be very careful to label the EC an mainly english-speaking movement. I think it is mainly American because all the material and books are in English. In 2 or 3 years the situation will look differently!

With regards the "Protestant" adjective, again the appelation is empirical and I ask for a counter-example. WestonWyse, you mention a connection between the emerging church and Catholic circles. Do you have some specific references? technopilgrim 22:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Artisan said so in the original call for discussion (at least, I assume Artisan and Aaron are the same, since he mentioned his call for discussion above). It's in the archived data at the top of the page. I had heard such before, but I don't know any details. If you have are specifics, Artisan, it would be nice to add them to the links section, or even to add a section to the article (as the article is becoming nearly all links...). --WestonWyse 15:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Artisan and Aaron are the same. As far as the whole "english-speaking" classification (which I know we've dropped - who is making the change?), I know the conversation is occurring in Asia and Africa as well. http://coryaldrich.blogs.com/baldman/2005/04/walp_emergent_g.html It's really difficult to classify the emerging church as purely or primarily a protestant occurrence, since the EC is relying on Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, etc. heritage as well. Some have thrown around the term, "post-protestant" and "post-evangelical" as an accurate description of the EC. This is very different from a "protestant" affiliation. Further, I'm not certain the EC started in the U.S. Rather, it highly probable it occurred in the Europe, United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and probably other unmentioned locations at the same time for probably various and differing reasons. No one started it. The American Church cannot claim it. --Artisan949

I agree. Each country seems to have their own version of emerging church with native influences, and, very few would claim American heritage. The British in the eighties (NOS,Late Late Service) were far ahead of the Americans in the same decade. --tallskinnykiwi

Again, Anglican, etc. are Protestant (unless by "etc." you meant, for example, "Hindu") And so far, you have yet to actually provide any examples of these Catholic and Orthodox EC churches you keep mentioning, which doesn't lend a lot of weight to your argument. The lack of Catholic or Orthodox churches does, however, lend weight to the "primarily Protestant" classification, and begins to shift it towards exclusivity as well. As for "post-protestant" and "post-evangelical", I have a serious problem with creating words or new definitions of words when old words will work just fine (see the "conversation" discussion above).

And nowhere in the article was it said that the EC started in the USA. It merely said "English-speaking", which includes the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Great Britain. --WestonWyse 13:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, let's stay on track. We have already agreed to drop "English Speaking" (see conversation above). There is no more need to hash that label out again. In fact, I will make that change in the days to come. Let our discussion focus on the "protestant" label. Weston you said, "As for 'post-protestant' and 'post-evangelical', I have a serious problem with creating words or new definitions of words when old words will work just fine." The problem is, "protestant" does not work. Not all Christian traditions are considered protestant, my friend. My point has been that it is not wise to pigeon hole the EC as primarily this or that, in this case, protestant because of post-protestant, post-evangelical, post-denominational, post-exclusivist terms. Personally, identifying with the EC, I am a Catholic, Protestant. How does classifying (oh we love to classfy) the EC as purely or primarily Protestant, capture those of us who come with a diverse, ecclectic heritage? It doesn't. Many people in the EC have moved passed these labels that seperate the Church, rather than bring us together. We would do well to capture a description, a word, that communicates this. "Primarily protestant" does not. --Artisan949

But it is primarily Protestant. Christian traditions are Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. New "flavors" draw from one of those three. And while the EC may have moved past labels, encyclopedias have not, and this is an encyclopedia. The only way to argue that it is not primarily Protestant is to argue that it is primarily Catholic or Orthodox, or equal division of two or three of those. And defining the bulk of this movement is not about addressing each and every individual adherent; it is about defining the bulk of the movement, which is primarily Protestant. As for the idea of being a Catholic-Protestant, I'll let your priest have that discussion with you. --WestonWyse 22:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Weston, please!?!?! I refuse to go there with you my friend. Rather, I appreciate your desire to keep this as encyclopedic as possible. As you have asked us to prove that it is primarily something else, I ask you also to site your sources which suggest that it is "primarily protestant." So far you have failed to equally do that. We must seek out terms that communicate what the EC is and how it self-describes itself whether or not you like that approach or not. Frankly, I do not care what WestonWyse thinks is the emerging church. I want to know how the critics and the supporters (experts) are describing this occurrence. Please provide sources, not just links. Aditionally, let's find the common ground. Why can't we communicate that it is protestant (though not primarily because we cannot prove that), but also moves away from protestantism or whatever else. I'm comfortable with finding the common ground. Are you? --Artisan949

I've looked through the list of links within the article, as well as the lists of links on many of those pages. I noticed none that were Catholic or Othodox. Thus, my research indicates that the EC movement is primarily, if not exclusively, Protestant. I will ask again, if there are counter-examples, please list them. So far, the inability of anyone involved in this discussion to do so leads me to belive that I am correct in this conclusion. That being the case, there seems to be no need for common ground, because the EC seems to be developing in purely protestant circles. --WestonWyse 22:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

WestonWyse said, "Thus, my research indicates that the EC movement is primarily, if not exclusively, Protestant." Fortunately, Wikipedia says, "Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia." No orignal research One word, "Sources?" Let us move towards providing the facts instead of personal opinion. If we can't do that, there will be an impasse which will not be beneficial. --Artisan949 10:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

which focuses on reaching the "Postmodern Generation" (people born after 1980)

This is very poorly worded and desparately needs to be changed. The EC does not seem to have designs on any particular age group. This should be changed to a simplified statement of the actual goals of the EC movement. --WestonWyse

I concur. Until an alternative is recommended, it should be deleted. Agree? --Artisan949

I agree that a "generational" perspective is not universal among EC organizations, although many EC organizations appear to have exactly this perspective if their websites are any indication. technopilgrim 22:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I doubt it is a primary goal -- the target of a specific demographic and the implied exclusion of others. I agree with deleting it, as I said above, but I would like someone more familiar with EC goals to propose an alternative. It would be nice to list them simply (in a dozen or two words) within the introduction. --WestonWyse 15:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

This is the problem with the introduction. In its attempt to simplify the EC (which is complex) is reduces it to an over-simplified description of contemporary Christianity. There is a section that address the values of the Emerging Church which I think were satisfactory. Some changes have been made to them recently which are a bit problematic (mainly what we've discussed so far). If there is to be an introduction, we should include several paragraphs perhaps and error on the side of being exhaustive rather than over-simplified. Also, we should focus on the rest of the description of the emerging church, then write the introduction. It should serve as a synopsis / abstract of what the page will contain, rather than a definition of the EC in "30 words of less." --Artisan949

Good call to delete it. In the Young Leaders (pre-Emergent) days in 1999, Doug Pagitt and I decided to drop the word "postmodern" since it created so much confusion among those who could only see the deconstructive side. Its only use now is a punching bag for fundamentalists. A better focus is a towards those in the emerging culture which is not defined by age or philosophy. ----tallskinnykiwi

Has this been deleted? If not, I will make that change in the days to come in addition to deleting "english speaking." --Artisan949

There was a truce called, remember? No deleting until a concensus has been reached. The disputed article template is up there to point out that a discussion is underway and the factual accuracy is under debate. --WestonWyse 22:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Weston, weston, weston. No changes have been made yet. And do you mean until you agree? There is a concensus here to delete it. Myself, Techno, Tallskinny, seem to concur. What's the problem? Is the problem that you don't agree because that's not enough reason to NOT change it. If a concensus is what you want, we already have that. --Artisan949

reflecting the perceived needs and values of this generation, emerging churches emphasize authenticity, creative expression, and a non-judgmental perspective towards outsiders

I agree that the first phrase ("reflecting... generation") is overly-limiting and possibly POV against the EC. However, I fail to see the problem with the rest of this part. Are any of those three points incorrect? --WestonWyse

They are not in so much, incorrect as they are limiting. The emerging church is concerned with more then authenticity and creative expression. Non-judgementalism does not seem to be a main value of the emerging church. We should cite sources for the use of these three terms to summarize the EC. I fail to understand why these three were chosen. Why not community, mission, and theology or the arts, justice, and ecumenicism? --Artisan949

OK, I'm beginning to see your point; it's not that they're incorrect, but that they pigeon-hole emergent churches' philosophy and theology? How about deleting this section as well, and using the alternative explanation proposed for the section above to also cover this? --WestonWyse 15:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The section on the values is OK (though it needs some correction). This should be the only place that we talk about the values of the EC. I'm all for deleting this section. Which alt explanation are you referring to? --Artisan949

The one someone needs to write to replace the 'Postmodern generation" section, above. --WestonWyse 13:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Can we post an alternative / replacement to that section here before we publsih it to the article? --Artisan949

I've rather been hoping someone would since I suggested it. --WestonWyse 22:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem redundant since there is section devoted to these values more fully? --Artisan949

while retaining a Bible-based theology.

Retaining is not the same as enforcing. Unless the argument is that the EC discourages or disallows a Bible-based theology (which is ludicrous), this is an important statement, as it says that the EC is not a splinter cult with its own agenda, but a movement that can operate within traditional Christianity and its values. --WestonWyse

In our previous discussion, I did not mean to convey that the EC is a cult or does not adhere to a Christian orthodoxy or heritage. Rather, my concern is the use of the term "bible-based." What does that mean? The term could have various meanings dependent on who is asked. For a Catholic, a bible based theology may differ from a protestant, fundamentalist. Furthermore, the EC strives not only to retain a theological orthodoxy, but a Christian faith, heritage, tradition, etc. I've also argued that the EC has not defined its theology as of yet, so to say it is anything except a Christian theology would be problematic. I appreciate the section on ecclesiology, but we encounter, head on, this problem there. --Artisan949

I agree that "Bible-based" is a bit of a codeword, and we can do better. As an outsider to the movement I can only ask how doctrinal disagreements are handled inside EC groups? Are they downplayed and left unresolved? Or do Bibles come out & Scripture verses start flying? Or does the group leader step up and say "this is what we tend to believe in our group"? Religious organizations have different answers to this problem, and it's useful to know how any particular organization resolves it. BTW, I see the German wikipedia article talks about mysticism. That's a very interesting answer, if indeed it applies to EC groups, as mysticism has been out of favor for a long time now & may be due for a resurgence. technopilgrim 22:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

No, no; I didn't think you meant to imply that it is a cult. I'm just saying that it was a good way to note that the EC is compatible with traditional, even orthodox Christian teachings. However, I do see your point. Perhaps a better phrasing would be what I just said? "while retaining compatability with the traditional teachings of the churches involved." How does that sound? --WestonWyse 15:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, mysticism would be something wonderful to address since critics have accused the EC of being new-age and mystical. Again, I want to emphasize the decentralization of the EC convo. As such, the EC doesn't have a communal policy to handle doctrinal disagreements in the EC. Rather, there is freedom for various theological positions within the emerging church convo, as long as these could be consider orthodox -and possibly a "generous orthodoxy" at that. As such, each individual emerging church probably has its own way of dealing with theological dillemas -some conservative, some more liberal in approach. I like your suggestion Weston. One of the values use to be about deconstructing theology and freeing it for modernistic baggage. I believe it also said something to about theological freedom granted as long as it fell somewhere in general Christian orthodoxy. Too bad that was changed and deleted. Perhaps, it should be simply "while seeking to retain historical, traditional doctrines of the Church." --Artisan949

You do realize there is a page history, where you can go see every change ever made to an article, right? Technopilgrim used it it point out your error in saying that no one had replied to your original post, above. That said, does the EC actually seek to keep traditional doctrines? It has seemed (and has been pointed out) to me that there was pretty much no organized or central doctrines of the EC. --WestonWyse 13:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know all about the History page. The changes were made long ago of which I mentioned previously. Moving on. At this time, there is no communal, or shared, or common theology though there is a non-commnal theology, a theological discussion happening with people coming from different perspectives. I wondered if "seeking to retain" was the wrong phrase as well. Perhaps, "while sharing a common value for the diverse historical, traditional doctrines of the Church." I do not think collectively the EC is anti Christian heritage, history, tradition, doctrine. There is in place a common value for these things within the EC, even if broad, eccletic, diverse. --Artisan949

The phrase "common value" is incredibly vague. It doesn't really convey any specific meaning. How about "without excluding the historic, traditional doctrines of the Church"? --WestonWyse 22:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't work because we cannot prove that. We can prove through EC literature what I suggested. We have to be comfortable that aspects of this will be vague. It will only become more clear as the EC progresses. --Artisan949

Encyclopedias are not for vagueness; they are for clarity. And EC literature I have seen contradicts your suggestion. --WestonWyse 22:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Great, let's talk about that then? Please provide a reference to the source that contradicts, ""while sharing a common value for the diverse historical, traditional doctrines of the Church." Just off the top of my head, McLaren, Webber, Kimball, possibly Andrew Jones agree. (You still lingering Andrew?). Shall I provide citations? --Artisan949 10:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)