Talk:Emerging church/Introduction 1

Editing

Over the last few days, it is apparent that some of you are upset about the changes from movement to conversation. If we are going to use the term movement, we need to explain why. See the discussion below. We cannot use that terms just because in some people POV it is easier to understand the EC. Please provide support for labeling it a movement from a sociological and religious movement perspective. If we cannot justify why it should be labeled a movement, then it deserves not to be labeled a movement.

Please do not hijack wikipedia and make inappropriate changes. Many have worked hard to provide a satisfactory definition. Also, I think it fair to not make changes unless time (at least 7 days) has elapsed for people to comment and discuss.

Thank you!

P.S. No flaming either wes! I'm trying to give some good advice to create a decent definition here. I thought the original was fine as did a lot of others. What was indicated since seemed not at all EC (encyclopedic or otherwise). I wasn't demanding anything from anyone, just asking. I propose we look at the German definition of the emerging church (it's not in english), as a possible alternative to what has been done here. I will try to provide a translation in the days to come. Appreciate the dialogue.

--artisan949

I believe the Introduction misrepresents the Emerging Church.

(unlabelled comments are by Aaron at TheVoiz dot com) The Introductions sounds indicative of the seeker-sensitive movement and not emerging church conversation. Consider the following:

>>> The Emerging Church is an incipient movement

The Emerging Church (EC) has not fully subscribed to the term, "movement." In fact many authors and thinkers alike, suggest that the EC is still in its infancy and thus a conversation. I agree. Recent critics have tried to suggest that the EC is a movement, but these claims are not shared by many EC authors, thinkers, and practitioners. Movement would also suggest that there are several obvious communal characteristics and a collective identity to the EC. By social and religious movement definition, "Shared values, styles, behaviors, language, traditions, symbols, and/or other forms of group definition (hereby referred to as, characteristics) by which a movement marks itself as unique" have not fully surfaced within the conversation that is, the Emerging Church. There is talk as to what the Emerging Church should encompass, but only a limited set of premature communal characteristics currently shared. Emerging Church characteristics, in many ways, are still idiosyncratic.

The strange use of the word "conversation" is problematic. This is EC slang. Can we have something different that still gets the meaning across? I understand there is something of a preliminary quality which is missed if we use the unadorned word "movement". This is why I modified "movement" by "incipient" (which means "beginning to exist or appear"). Is this not weak enough? technopilgrim

Seconded. The somewhat unique use of "conversation" in EC slang is nothing if not confusing. However those involved choose to label themselves, it is a movement. The word is certainly applicable, and changing it to confusing EC slang could easily be seen as POV within the article, as the purpose of Wikipedia is to collect encyclopedic information, not orginizational propganda. And besides, the Emerging Church cannot fully subscribe to any term, as there is no centralized body of leadership. I believe what you meant to say was that the majority of leaders of EC groups/congregations have not fully subscribed to the term. --WestonWyse

I strongly disagree. "Conversation" is no more slang than "Movement" is. Being encyclopedic, the description should portray what the emerging church is and how it describes itself. Not what one feels comfortable labeling it with the sole objective of making it understandable. A Movement implies a condition not apparent within the Emerging Church conversation. By labeling it a conversation, we are simplifing it where by labeling it a movement we are misrepresenting and complicating the EC occurrence. If we use Movement, we must qualify it as a movement. Just because movement alledgedly makes it easier to understand (POV), does not typify something truly as a movement. What are its shared values, styles, behaviors, language, traditions, symbols, and/or other forms of group definition that qualify it as a movement? It is too soon to tell based on my recent research. Thus, conversation is appropriate as the EC conversation focuses on discussing these very things. --artisan949

Yes, it is slang. Conversation means an oral exchange of ideas. EC leaders talking about EC things is a conversation. The Emerging Church, however, is a religious movement. If you don't want to call it a movement, at least finds a word that fits. Incidentally, penomenon -- a rare or observable event -- does not fit either. Am reverting back to encyclopedic, NPOV form from EC propaganda moentarily. --WestonWyse 19:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I erased the entire introduction since it was not accurate. Additionally, it didn't seem appropriate as well that it was being changed and then reverted back. So let's just get rid of it. I will propose something new as an introduction. Perhaps, we may want to indicate that it the EC sees it as a conversation while others choose to classify it as a movement. That is fair and appropriate. --artisan949

But you have yet to stick around for discussions on the matter; that is what would be would be fair and appropriate. You are repeatedly hijacking this article for your own ends. If you want to change it, start answering the questions asked. You have yet to demonstrate how or why the introduction given is inaccurate. Questions asked have been completely unanswered. Objections raised to your ideas have been completely ignored. And you are going behind all of us, ignoring us and disrespecting us and changing the article to suit your tastes without paying any attention to us at all. Stop. Start talking. Start answering questions. --WestonWyse 07:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

>>> Within the English-speaking Protestant church

Though one could argue that the Emerging Church is primarily a Western, Protestant construct, the EC is also expressed in non-Protestant traditions as well. Catholic, Orthodox, Anabaptist, Episcopalian, Anglican and mainline Protestant denominations are all expressed in the Emerging Church. English-speaking seems a bit irrelevant to the discussion.

Classification is an important function of an encyclopedia. The adjectives "English-speaking" and "Protestant" are intended to place the EC within the greater context of Christianity. As far as I know both terms are accurate, but perhaps my sample size suffers from being too small. Are there any Catholic or Orthodox congregations or leaders you would classify as EC? (The other denominations you mention are Protestant - confused ???). Are there congregations outside the English-speaking world -- I've only run across EC groups from the US, UK, and Australia. technopilgrim

Orthodox, Anabaptist, Episcopalian, and Anglican churches are mainline Protestant denominations (well, Anabaptists may not be mainline, but they are Protestant). Protestant means, in its simplest form, "Christian, but not Catholic," so that's really not much of an argument there. I would be mostly wondering if the Catholic EC groups operated with the approval of Chruch leadership or independantly from it. Approval of the ideals of the Emering Church by the higher eschelons of Catholic leadership seems unlikely to me (especially considering Benedict XVI), and if they are operating without it, then that basically makes them Protestant as well. --WestonWyse

Classification is not what is in question. The type of classification is. Your sample size appears limited. Also, arguably the traditions aforementioned by myself could not be considered mainline. Where mainline protestant may be more inclusive to mainline denominations within protestantism. What is more important here as well is the use of the term "english speaking." This is too narrow of a view of the global emerging church. --artisan949

What do you mean about the type of classification? Are you saying those are or aren't Protestant denominations? And from your first post, it seemed that you were referring to denominations, as the english-speaking part seemed an aside. Nevertheless, the EC movement is primarily (which means "not exclusively") within english-speaking protestant churches. And it is significant because it is a fact involved within the scope of this article. If you have statistics to refute this, please feel free to share them with us, because so far you haven't said anything to this point. Am reverting back to encyclopedic, NPOV form from EC propaganda moentarily. --WestonWyse 19:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Statistics are unnecessary to prove anything here. This is not a statistical matter. There are indeed non-english speaking emerging churches since the conversation is a global convo and not an english speaking one. --artisan949

The fact that there are non-english speaking EC churches is given in the phrase "primarily, but not exclusively". If you want to argue something else -- that EC churches are primarily non-english speaking, for example -- then, yes, it is a matter of statistics, and yes, they are necessary to prove it. And as a matter of classification it is an important issue. The scope of the movement and its locations are very important to an accurate article on the topic. If you would like to clarify the matter by writing a section on non-elglish speaking EC churches, feel free. But do not eliminate this part just because you don't like it, because you have offered no arguments to this point that it is even inaccurate. --WestonWyse 07:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

>>> Which focuses on reaching the "Postmodern Generation" (people born after 1980).

There is a lot of discussion around the misconception concerning the EC's focus on a postmodern generation or marketing demographic (people born after a specific year). The core of the EC conversation does not focus upon how to reach or proselytize a targeted demographic. This is not to suggest there are not church expressions perceiving the EC to be concerned primarily with evangelization or stylized approaches to postmodern ministry for the sake of evangelism. Such churches adopt widely promoted EC characteristics as a new trend for doing church. However, evangelism through stylization is not a salient characteristic of the EC discussion. Often this is negated by suggesting the EC is concerned with an emerging postmodern mindset which transcends ages and generations.

I've re-read your paragraph a few times but can't seem to untangle it (I'm prone to long sentences myself, so I'm sympathetic). What is negated? That Evangelism through stylization is not salient? (Meaning that it is salient?) Or the not suggesting that there are not church expressions that percieve EC to primarily evangelize postmoderns? I'm just guessing what you're getting at, but let me make a proposal: how about changing the wording from "which focuses on reaching the postmodern generation" to "which often focus on reaching the postmodern generation"? Does this fix the problem from your standpoint? technopilgrim

Evangelism and/or ecclesial stylization does not have a high salience in the emerging church. Your proposal is still an inaccurrate description of the emerging church. The problem occurs with the terminology, "reaching" and "evangelism." I am not certain this is why the emerging church (collectively) exists. Foremost, the description focuses on two problematic areas: 1) a market segment and 2) individuals. The emerging missiology which seems to be surfacing in the EC conversation calls the church away from building the church towards advancing the kingdom. Likewise, the individual does not become the primary focus of salvation, but all of God's creation. I think this is a better understanding of the significance of the emerging church. --artisan949

That doesn't really answer his questions at all. --WestonWyse 19:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

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

I do not find the Emerging Church intentionally reflecting the "perceived," felt needs or values of this generation. This sounds rather market-driven. Rather, the reflection is a natural occurrence of the church in a modern and/or postmodern context. Churches throughout history have always unintentionally reflected the culture in which comprises their context. Even churches who have abstained from culture to the best of their ability have in one way or another reflected main stream culture. Consequently, the EC is not adopting "values" merely because culture has adopted these values. Rather, the EC has a cultural ethos, because it is in the prevailing culture and it is organic to its context. Thus, for the Emerging Church, a tension emerges to exist somewhere between cultural separatist and cultural syncretist.

I think we agree we don't want to mention those cultural norms which are found in equal measure in both the greater culture and in the emerging church. They are of no interest. We do want to highlight any cultural norms which we find to be more common or more emphasized in the emerging church, especially if they are distinct from the norms of other Christian groups. So somewhere in the article we need to list, which (presently) is: "authenticity, creative expression, and non-judgementalism".

More problematic is the relationship of the EC leadership to these defining norms. If they are "naturalized citizens" to these norms, meaning that they adopted them in order to accomplish a greater goal of evangelism, then we want the article to reflect that, and yes there should be a bit of the "market-driven" aspect to it. (Which is not necessarily a negative -- the megachurch movement is quite open about giving the customer what they want -- all to good effect). If the EC leaders are typically "native born" to these distinctive norms, then I agree with you that it wouldn't be NPOV to suggest they view the demographic as a market segment.

From what I can read the EC leaders are more "naturalized citizens" than "native born" with regards to these cultural norms. If so we do want to imply that they are reaching out to a generation who is different than themselves. Or am I off base with my characterization of the EC leaders? technopilgrim

I don't agree that "naturalized citizenship" equates adopting cultural norms for the "greater goal of evangelism." The problem with the entire description of the emerging church is it is biased towards evangelicalism. The emerging church, in may ways, could arguably be considered post-evangelical. Not of its entirety, but large portions especially in a global context. So NO, there is not a market driven aspect to the essence of what the emerging is. There is no demographic. A removal of this entire section would be more than appropriate. --artisan949

>>> While retaining a Bible-based theology.

Lastly, the EC currently has no communal theology to subscribe to as well. Minimally, the conversation often involves theological inquires and reflections into epistemology, ecclesiology, and missiology. However, holistically, the EC does not currently have a set of theological underpinnings uniquely its own. Recently, the EC has taken criticism for its lack of communal theology and for some prominent authors' theological inquires. The critics suggest such authors' theological opinions are entirely EC, rather than acknowledging such opinions as belonging to one individual only and not necessarily shared. Additionally, these claims are difficult to make when no author has yet claimed a theology for all of the EC -"bible based," or otherwise.

Again, this may be a sample sizes issue and counter-examples are welcomed. Here's the test: are there any EC groups that ascribe to any source of authority other than the Bible? Catholic and Orthodox Christians answer yes to that question, as do mystical sects, Mormons, and some charismatic groups. Are there EC groups that answer yes? If so, then I agree we should not describe them as following a Bible-based theology. Otherwise the description is accurate and useful. technopilgrim

My point was not that the EC does not subscribe to scripture as its foundation. I thought it premature to claim the EC has a "bible based theology" since that term is loaded. What is "bible based" for a conservative, fundamentalist group may not be "bible based" for the emerging church. Within the emerging church there is an emerging theology. To claim it is concrete is an misrepresentation and not very useful. --artisan949

The claim is not that the EC has a Bible-based theology, but that it retains one. What this statement says is that, unlike some church movements, the EC does not reject the Bible as a foundation of theology. Lack of rejection does not necessarily mean acceptance. However, there probably is a more appropriate way of phrasing this. Feel free to offer a suggestion. --WestonWyse 19:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to leave this open for discussion for the next 7 days. After this time has passed, I will make changes appropriately.

Aaron at theVoiz dot com

My only suggestion is to make sure that you keep any changes encyclopedic in nature. Some of the things you have suggested seem to be based on personal opinion or EC doctrine rather than an overview of the facts involved (specifically the two instances on which I commented above, though I can see how some of your other comments could produce similar results). If your changes smack of POV, they will doubtless be reverted before very long. This has nothing to do with you or the Emerging Church; it is simply the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. --WestonWyse

Changes were made appropriately --artisan949

Changes were made very inappropriately, actually. This section is to discuss things that need to be changed and come to an agreement before changing them. Your asking for discussion and then ignoring the discussion and doing exactly what you want to do anyway is not an appropriate use of this forum. I am making the changes I mentioned above. Please actually discuss and come to an agreement before you go and fill the article with EC propaganda again. --WestonWyse 19:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Jones

The following was added to the article, but is neither encyclopedic nor NPOV, and is rather self-promoting. But someone took a lot of time typing it up, so I didn't want to just get rid of it. It seemed to go much better here with the current discussion. From the front page:

Andrew Jones takes exception to this definition, primarily because it limits the movement to "English-speaking" Protestants. He feels that there are plenty of those from other nations, tribes and religious persuasions to make the definition far too limiting. One can read "his entire post here".

Hi Andrew Jones here. I didnt realize this paragraph was in there and am not sure who put it there. I did not read it after my comment - which was more of a plea to get the definition back to its excellent state. Obviously, we should delete it. It really has no value anymore. I am sure the person who wrote it will be honored that we are fixing the definition ----tallskinnykiwi