Talk:Emerging church

Tradition
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)

Labelling
The current label of "Evangelical" is highly inaccurate, and does not reflect "generous orthodoxy." The point of much EC talk is moving beyond labels in current debates, yet interested parties want to know about theological boundaries. Hence, both 'label' and post-'label' is required to reflect the debate. This is the summary introduction to what is talked about in the following pages, does each word need a footnote? Which labels are to be argued with, and why? Hyper3 (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Currenet lede reads: participants can be described as Evangelical, post-evangelical, Liberal, post-Liberal, charismatic, neocharismatic and post-charismatic.  This seems to throw in the kitchen-sink (even missing that there are some conservative and post-conservative EC churches).  Wouldn't it be simpler just to say that participants come from a wide variety of church backgrounds?--Lyonscc (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think people outside the arena rather naively think that it is broadly evangelical; this just isn't the case. Much is protest, making for strange bedfellows. Also, to understand the syncretic nature of the animal, it is good to be able to list its various ingredients, especially where there are other pages to wiki with. I think it is " of the essence" to delineate the various streams feeding into it, as it is unlikely to retain a unified front. Indeed, it has already splintered as people seek to distance themselves from one another. I agree that post-conservative might be a helpful addition, but not conservative, as mostly its conservative Christianity that is acting as the foil and whipping-boy for protest language. Hyper3 (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A statement in the intro reads that the movement "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. Besides, these labels are broad. In addition, currently under the emerging church movement are both "liberal" and "conservative" leaning voices with regards to theology and politics, however you wanted to define liberal and conservative. Liberal Christianity has a more specific meaning within the 20th century.


 * I also think saying evangelicals only focus on heaven and hell is too much a broad stroke. For e.g., even the likes of evangelicals Rick Warren suggest living a "purpose driven life," that pertain to the here and now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vannessahhh (talk • contribs) 23:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Also several emerging leaders call themselves evangelical such as Scot McKnight. Tony Campolo is also self-descirbed as evangelical but his emphasis is the here and now. Vannessahhh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC).


 * In addition, an emphasis on heaven and hell is not exclusivly evangelical. One can also argue that traditional Catholics play a larger emphasis on heaven and hell, in working out your salvation (even more so than the megachurch evangelicals like Rick Warren's). Good works are done in view of 'working out your salvation.' Vannessahhh (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)  Vannessahhh (talk


 * The emerging church didn't evolve from a charismatic or pentecostal movement, so how can it be labelled as a post-charismatic movement? The emerging church's history was never connected to the charismatic movements we know of such as the latter rain or 3rd wave movements... Vannessahhh (talk —Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC).


 * Also, if there are charismatic emerging CHristians, as there are such as emerging charismatics/pentecostals, they comprise of a stream under this umbrella term of emerging Vannessahhh (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Vannessahhh (talk


 * Look up what charismatic and neo-charismatic church is on wikipedia, and you'll see that the emerging church is totally different. Albeit, there are emerging charismatics/pentecostals/neocharismatics, however, there are there are charismatics in the reform group as well. There are also other 'circles' of Christians in the emerging movement such as Anabaptists as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vannessahhh (talk • contribs) 23:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The main emphasis about the emerging church is faith in a post-modern society (thus post-liberal, post-conservative) are appropriate, and in a way as a protest in a way to evangelicals (then post-evangelicals) is appropriate. However, to say it's charismatic or neo-charismatic as defined by wikipedia is too narrow. There are neo-charismatics under the emerging church, however there are also ana-baptists, and other Christian 'circles' Emerging is a constellation of various different groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vannessahhh (talk • contribs) 23:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, look up charismatic, neocharismatic (or 3rd wave) and see if the emerging church evolved or were connected to these moevements. yes, there are emerging charimatics, but emerging is broader and also includes non-charismatics/non-neo-charismatics. It includes the likes of Rob Bell (who's background is reformed), it includes anabaptists like Scot McKnight.. and many emerging Christians wouldn't be considered charimatics or 3rdwave neocharimatics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vannessahhh (talk • contribs) 23:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Another argument that the emerging church is not associated or that it evolved from the charismatic/pentecostal movement (and hence labels such as post-charismatic and charismatic should not be used to describe the emerging church) is that even Tony Jones, a leader of the emergent village differentiates between pentecostals and the emerging church, and how each group can learn from each other. However, his opportunity to speak at a Pentecostal gathering was turned down because of his stance on same-sex marriage. Again, yes there are charismatic stream of emerging charismatics under this broad emerging movement, but there are also non-charismatic emerging Christians such as ana-baptists (Scot McKnight), emerging-reformed (Rob Bell), and other denominations and circles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vannessahhh (talk • contribs) 17:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Tb (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The intro does not say that the movement transcends the labels "conservative" and "liberal". What it says is that proponents say it does. (Sometimes; some proponents do not say that actually.)
 * I don't know where the text has ever said that evangelicals only focus on heaven and hell.
 * The emerging church didn't evolve from a charismatic or pentecostal movement, so how can it be labelled as a post-charismatic movement? Some emerging church movements did have a charismatic emphasis, and do seem that way to outsiders. That's the whole point of the lead. Please read it carefully.
 * to say it's charismatic or neo-charismatic as defined by wikipedia is too narrow sure, but the lead doesn't say that.
 * REPLY To say that the emerging church looks charismatics to outsiders is not accurante. There is not one critic that claims this. The controversy has never been surrounding whether there are charismatic streams of the emerging church. Just as this article said, there are those ni the emerging church that are mroe traditional and place a larger emphasis on the traditional sacraments, and there are probably charismatics who place a larger emphasis on the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit. To outsiders and even to insiders, there is not one blog or paper to say that the emerging church  is characterized by being charismatic. For e.g. even emergent leader Brian McLaren suggests that Satan may not be a real entity, but a personification. None of the self proclaimed emerging leaders in the U.S. even come from any charismatic tradition either.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vannessahhh (talk • contribs) 16:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If we're to include charismatic because there's a charismatic stream within the emerging church, then we shoudl also add that there's also a reformed stream under the emerging chruch. Just as there are charismatic (not sure who), evangelical (Dan Kimball) and liberal (not sure who) streams under the emerging church, there are also reformed streams under the emerging church. Two prominent emerging leaders in the U.S. who have a reformed background are: Rob Bell and Mark Driscoll. Emerging reformers incorporate their theology of reformers such as Martin Luther and Calvin, but include many theological aspects of the emerging church such as having a wider view of the atonement, being missional, etc. This isn’t to say all of the emerging church are reformed, but not all of the emerging church are charismatics or mainline liberal either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vannessahhh (talk • contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ANABAPTIST AND EMERGING THEOLOGY OVERLAP
 * If we were to argue that emerging crosses and overlaps with various theological boundaries such as with the charismatic and liberal Christianity, then Anabaptist should also be included.
 * What THEOLOGICAL overlap is there between Anabaptist and the emerging church?
 * 1.	Several Anabaptist leaders have made the case for a connection:
 * a)	Stuart Murray Williams, chair of the UK anabaptist network finds a connect as seen in his book, “Changing Mission: Learning from the Newer Churches, http://books.ekklesia.co.uk/content/changing-mission-learning-newer-churches-stuart-murray,
 * b)	London's Luke Bretherton sees a strong Anabaptist theology within the emerging church, drawing from John Howard Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas. ["Beyond the Emerging Church" in Remembering Our Future: Explorations in Deep Church.]
 * c)	Scot McKnight is an Anabaptist theologian who is considered an emerging leader in the U.S. also finds much overlap. He has published books under the emergent village and came up with the 5 streams of the emerging church that even this wikipedia article draws upon http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html),
 * 2.	Even leaders outside of the emerging church, such as Tim Keller takes this notice: “I think it [emerging church] is indeed an Anabaptist approach. Its approach to community and witness, its relationship to culture, its view of the atonement, salvation, and revelation--all of these are far more like the Anabaptist tradition than any other.”
 * Therefore, if we were to include that the emerging church crosses various theological boundaries (such as the charismatic Pentecostals to the liberal theology of mainline Christians), then Anabaptist should definitely be included. Major US emerging leaders such as Brian McLaren even speaks at various anabaptist associated churches.
 * Jlh71 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Some emerging church did have a charismatic emphasis, and while others were more from an Anabaptis tradition, and while othres were in more of a reformed lead. E.g. there's discussion whether the emerging movement is actually an Anabaptist thing. http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2007/05/anabaptism_and_.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vannessahhh (talk • contribs) 13:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to including anabaptist (with a little A) in the lead as well. I think the question about reformed is different. The point isn't that there are people with a charismatic background, as much that some (and why the question about "critics"? it isn't "criticism" to observe that some emergent/-ing groups have a charismatic feel) groups seem charismatic in their ethos. What we could actually use is some citation for all of these. Tb (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Too many block quotes
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)

Values and Characteristics
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)

Disruptive Editing by Spotfixer (talk)
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Template littering
Hepp! I littered the section "Criticism" with more, and  that I've done for a very long long time. Simply put: the section makes me depressed by it's fuzziness, and the weasely way that it tries to paint the picture of impending doom onto the Emerging Church trend. Let's say it this way: fundamentalism was a reaction against emerging modernism in the church, the emerging church is a reaction against fundamentalism. The reaction against the emerging church should be defined in such a way as to explain: The current text in the Criticism should, as fast as possible, be replaced so that extremely bad sentences such as the absolutely horrid:
 * 1) what movements are the strongest critics against the "emerging church",
 * 2) what are they criticising,
 * Some[who?] see the distinction between the evangelical and emergent approaches to evangelism in some[who?] emerging Christians' rejection of propositional evangelism[citation needed][clarification needed] which Evangelical[who?] and Fundamentalist[who?] Christians ...

It's hard to imagine the way thinking of an author of such a statement. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Driscol

 * Mark Driscoll, one of the heavy critics, is "charismatic Calvinist" (according to himself). It seems his criticism regards that he interpret the "emerg ent 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)


 * 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)

Don Carson

 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Others

 * 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)


 * 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)

Centered-Set
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.

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.

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.


 * 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)

Voices & Churches
This section is odd to say the least... firstly, it is completely US-centric - Ian Mobsby and Stuart Murray are quoted in the article yet not listed as voices, nor are Alan Hirsch or Mike Frost from Australia, Steve Taylor from NZ, Dave Tomlinson, Kester Brewin or Pete Rollins from the UK etc. There was once a very good list of voices, not having been here for a while I was very surprised to see such an inadequate list. secondly, the final two "voices" are new to me and their wikipedia articles give little reason for them to be included here?

Similarly the listed Churches does not represent the Emerging Church well. Churches like Moot (London), Sanctus1 (Manchester), COTA (Seattle), Solomons Porch, Ikon (Belfast) are far better known within Emerging Church circles. Thanks Mark


 * Completely agree. I am very involved in the emerging conversation (having written three books on the subject) and I had never even heard of the last two people mentioned. This smells of people wanting to narrow who is influencing the movement or include themselves for vanity reasons. Either the list should be removed entirely or it should be much more comprehensive. As Mark says, the US centric nature of the names is baffling considering the importance of New Zealand, Australia and the UK in the forging, development and maintenance of the movement. I am not sure of the etiquette for removing things (e.g. am I allowed). But I will go ahead as it seems to be against the ethos of wikipedia to have this strange and unrepresentative list of names. Pete R

Adding Heresy to "See also"
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * A movement in opposition (theologically) to orthodoxy. What again is "heresy"?--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (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)


 * .To help connect the dots.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And you will notice that this section is missing a multitude of citations and clarifications.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

No reversions necessary - you've NOT proven anything (except, perhaps, that it's time to remove the poorly-sourced section you've cited). You cannot say "this is the ECM's view of X..." by the very nature of the movement, so tagging "see also: Heresy" is just as unneeded in this article as it is in the Calvinism article.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Sounds like there is no concensus to add it.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It does not seem so. If we get additional opinions, I'm willing to discuss, but I think Hyper3 summed up my thoughts. I think New religious movement could work, if you wanted to add it, though.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Syncretistic [sic]
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)

Weasel Words
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)

Edit warring
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)

Some principles: Tb (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletions must be accompanied with some sort of explanation, either here or in the edit history.
 * Add text rather than replacing it.
 * Don't keep doing the same thing over and over in an edit war; instead, discuss it here.
 * Blogs are not reliable sources.
 * Long quotes from authors are bordering on WP:OR prohibited original research.
 * Use edit histories every time. Further edits without any explanation or commentary here will be reverted.

Problems with the Missional living section
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)


 * 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)

Conservative vs Liberal labels for the emerging church
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)


 * 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)

"Emergent Village"?
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)

General Editorial Issues
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)Ultimateteddy
 * 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)

Having no Controversy is a problem
Encountering this page, it seemed to me that it was essentially a long advertisement for the movement it described; so I looked at the Talk page. I see that there was once a Controversy section but that this had become a battleground, and so it was deleted until there could be some agreement on what to put in it.

This seems reasonable, but it doesn't seem to have been followed up. As I am not an expert on the topic, could I appeal to the supporters of "emerging" Christianity to propose a summary of criticisms? They probably know the range of things being said. Aardwolf (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Having just read thru the article, it seems as tho argument and controversy is not in the lexicon of the emerging church. Humility and charity replace disagreement. Seems to me that the center cannot hold. Washi (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In general, Criticism/Controversy sections in articles are discouraged. It is better to simply lay out what an individual or group believes and, if it deviates significantly from the norm, include the compare/contrast in the relevant section(s), rather than to call out a separate "controversy" section.  And since the ECM is a movement and not a denomination, there is no fixed set of distinguishing beliefs/practices or a doctrinal statement that can be referenced and compared/contrasted.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

But this problem of 'non-agreement' or dispute is the profound problem of wikipedia. Wikipedia relies on consensus even if that is achieved via attrition and an editing war. Information only has meaning when it's organised via a critical argument - that is the difference between data/information and 'knowledge' which is what any Encyclopaedia claims to offer - not just data, but knowledge. The only material that is interesting and even important is that which is highly contested. Let us see the arguments about what this movement is - and know that the very presence of contestation means that it is meaningful: it is important, and therefore worthy of consideration. Wikipedia is full of meaningless sh*t. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.205.49 (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Then your argument is with Wikipedia, not the ECM article. "Arguments about what the movement is" seems to be a request either for coatracking or original research.  Encyclopedic knowledge is not always engaging, but simply factual.  If you're looking for contestation and argument, search Google for blogs on the subject.  If you're looking simply for the facts, come to wikipedia.  In those cases where fact and opinion are blurred, we try to sort it out on the discussion page and include the consensus in the article.  If there are key disagreements within a movement, we include the most notable streams of thought, not every petty squabble.  This article, in particular, has (from time to time) been the battleground for heresy hunters to "defend the truth" from the ECM.  That's not what wikipedia exists for, and if that means that some folks find it to be "meaningless sh*t", so be it.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the section opening statement. This reads like an advertisement-- a marketing piece.  I know it when I see it.
 * * Tell us about the place of Baptism, or Communion.
 * * Speak of authority (if any).
 * * Describe the creedal statements, if any.
 * * What Scripture is used, if any?
 * * Who decides what is taught?
 * You see? The piece is written so as to avoid distinguishing itself in any way that can allow criticism and uses a lot of terms which are internally understood, but have no meaning in the greater Church.  I think that is POV violation-- and frankly, sounds a bit cultish.-- cregil   (talk)  22:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is, because the ECM is a movement and not a denomination, what you could legitimately criticize about one ECM church may not be a belief/practice/issue in another ECM church right down the street. Some practice water baptism of adults, others do not.  Some subscribe to creeds, others do not.  Most use Scripture, though most (but not all) view it as Narrative, first and foremost, and didactic, secondarily.  Most (but not all) are independent of one another, managed by local pastors/elders in some fashion.  It is not POV-pushing (which would be a violation, to be sure), but, rather it is somewhat amorphous in its local churches (most of which don't even call themselves "emerging churches").  In some ways, it is very similar to the early church in Asia Minor, where there was no monolithic "denomination", and churches formed organically, starting often with small house churches.  While I do not belong to an ECM church, I've studied them for the past decade.  The article tries to pick out some of the commonalities across ECM churches, but even then can't claim to be 100% correct for every EC movement church.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Biased?
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)

Controversy
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

October 2012 Insertions into Generous Orthodoxy section
These things flare up from time to time, but it appears there are some (one?) new editor(s) with the desire to insert Brian McLaren (who only speaks for a small subset of the American Emergent stream, not the Emerging Church Movement) and Rob Bell (who has always claimed to not be part of the ECM at all) and the topic of homosexuality into the article. These don't really belong in this article, let alone this section. The John MacArthur quote recently inserted here probably doesn't belong, either, since it is about Emergent Village and not the ECM, itself, which MacArthur's book almost completely ignores (though his language confusingly, for the causal reader, conflates the two at times).

Before we go trying to insert these things in the article at random points, it would be best to discuss them here.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile just to create an Emergent Village article, separate from the Emerging Church article, since it seems to be the lightning rod for controversy within the Reformed Blogosphere and their favorite authors (MacArthur, Piper, etc.).--Lyonscc (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you saying McLaren is not part of the emerging church? Hyper3 (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am saying Bell is not part of the emerging church (at all), and that McLaren receives undue weight in this article (and American Reformed blog commentary) in regards to the Emerging Church Movement. He is part of the Emergent stream - Emergent Village, to be specific - which is a very small subset of the ECM.  It would be like frequently inserting Fred Phelps into an article on the worldwide Baptist Church movement.  If you read the first two body sections of this article, the Emerging Church Movement, "Definitions and Terminology" and "Similar Labels", you will get what I'm saying.  Emerging and Emergent are not synonymous, and continuous insertion of McLaren as a representative foil for the Emerging Church Movement is highly misleading, and factually incorrect.  This is why I suggest that perhaps an article on Emergent Village would be better, since it is more self-contained than the ECM, and using MacLaren as a representative would be much more accurate.--Lyonscc (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * McLaren is in all the references as a founder member and current participant of the emerging church. They all have their own streams and spheres of influence. Its not the same as Phelps and the Baptists, more like Ringo and the Beatles. Wouldn't you agree? See Driscoll.Hyper3 (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not at all. The Emerging Church Movement started long before McLaren and Emergent Village, first in NZ and then into AU and GB.  Driscoll's talk was primarily focused on what many would refer to as the Emergent Church (or Emergent Village) - and the questions at Mars Hill in Seattle (which led to Driscoll's talk) were primarily framed around Emergent (because Driscoll was friends with McLaren at the time Emergent Village was getting started, and was frequently being lumped in with Emergent even after his public split with McLaren.)  Emergent Village is discrete and identifiable as a network.  The Emerging Church Movement is not discrete with an identifiable network of churches, it is a movement (as the name implies) that has been going on in multiple denominations/streams of Christianity, in response to the postmodernization of the culture we live in.  Emergent Village is a liberal subset of the ECM, just as Driscoll's Mars Hill Church would be an example of a conservative subset (the Acts 29 Network) of the Emerging Church Movement.


 * I would still say the Phelps analogy is probably the most apt, as most "emerging churches" wouldn't recognize him or claim he spoke for them in any way. I hear this frustration from ECM church pastors, especially those outside the US, quite frequently. Phelps is at the far-right of a denomination that is primarily centrist or center-right.  McLaren is at the far-left in a movement that is primarily centrist or center-left.  MacArthur, Driscoll and most of the American critics lazily cast McLaren as the archetype of the ECM and then proceed to tear down the straw man they created.  NT Wright, an Anglican bishop and widely respected theologian, has done a much better, and nuanced job - as has Scot McKnight (an Evangelical professor in the US) - of critiquing the positives and negatives of the ECM, and neither would consider McLaren to be the movement's archetype or spokesperson.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Even Driscoll recognizes the distinction (though his later language in the same sermon often drifted between -ing and -ent interchangeably), where he said:


 * McLaren, a very gifted writer, rose to team leader in part because he had an established family and church, which allowed him to devote a lot of time to the team. That team eventually morphed into what is now known as Emergent. This name has caused much confusion because there is a difference between what is Emerging and what is Emergent. First, the Emerging church is a broad category that encompasses a wide variety of churches and Christians who are seeking to be effective missionaries wherever they live. This includes Europeans and Australians who are having the same conversation as their American counterparts. (emphasis mine)


 * This Wikipedia article is about the Emerging Church Movement, not Emergent Village, a minority subset. I do sympathize with the confusion, though, as many so-called "discernmentalist" or ODM's ("Online 'Discernment' 'Ministries'") have singled out Emergent as a source of all that is wrong with the modern church, and tend to label anything they disagree with as "emergent".--Lyonscc (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Is Emergent part of the Emerging church, according to you? Hyper3 (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If you follow Scot McKnight, who's probably written the most of anyone I've seen on the entire movement, "Emergent" and "Emergent Village" are somewhat synonymous, and are one single stream (very US-centric, as well) within the Emerging Church Movement. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of churches that would definitionally fit within the Emerging Church Movement - most of which would be categorized (in the US) as non-denominational church plants and/or house churches - that have no affiliation (or resemblance) to Emergent/Emergent Village churches.


 * Perhaps another way to look at this: The ECM is a movement, not a denomination.  It is a response to an outside event/stimulus within multiple denominations/streams of the Christian faith.  A similar movement occurred in the US in the mid-1800's as a result to the event/stimulus of the US Civil War.  Many churches, across denominations, split from other churches within their own denominational/traditional stream along the same lines as the North/South geopolitical lines.  For example, the Christian Church/Church of Christ split occurred along the North/South line, nominally over the Regulative/Normative Principle of Worship.  The churches in the South were not homogenous, nor could they lumped together in any denominational sense.


 * In the same way, the rise of postmodernism is the event/stimulus which gave rise to the Emerging Church Movement. There are ECM churches that have come from the Catholic stream, the Eastern Orthodox Stream, the Reformed Stream, the Evangelical Stream, the Mainline Stream, and the Restoration Movement stream, etc.  The ECM churches in the "Emergent Village"/Emergent stream have primarily come from the Mainline stream of Christianity, so many of the criticisms leveled against the EV churches could be similarly leveled against the Mainline stream of Christianity.  At the same time, these criticisms are not valid when applied to ECM churches from the Reformed stream of Christianity.  At the same time, the common criticisms of the traditional Reformed stream of Christianity are often valid when made about the ECM churches that came out of the Reformed stream.


 * For example, Solomon's Porch (an EV church, led by Doug Padgitt, that came out of a Mainline tradition), Mars Hill Church (an ECM church, led by Mark Driscoll, that came out of the Reformed tradition), and Vintage Faith Church (an ECM church, led by Dan Kimball, that came out of the Evangelical tradition) are all churches that came out of the Emerging Church movement. If you attended each one of them, you would see they could never be part of the same "denomination", even though they were all planted as part of the Christian response to the rise of postmodernism.


 * So, to get back to your initial question: "Is Emergent part of the Emerging church?" If you examine the Emerging Church Movement (the subject of this Wikipedia article), Emergent/Emergent Village, is a small subset of churches that came out of the movement. They are not "part of the Emerging church" - the "Emerging church" isn't a denomination one can be "part of".  Emergent Village churches just rose as a response to similar circumstances/stimuli as other churches in the movement that are not associated with, or look anything like, EV churches.--Lyonscc (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

According to many published sources, Emergent and Brian MacLaren are an important part of the emerging church movement (different to a denomination, I understand). According to Driscoll, MacLaren's position is one of three important theological locations within the movement. Therefore he must be in the article. You can nuance each insertion by adding context if you like, but I don't think you can revert referenced material base on your own original research and opinions, eloquent as they are. The article as it stands has very little reference to the debates, and is therefore very one-sided. Hyper3 (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * McLaren is already mentioned in several places in the article, so I've not got a problem with that. Ascribing his views - particularly on specific doctrines or dogmas, when doctrines are not at all homogenous across the movement - to the movement, itself, was the source of my objection.  Also, I wouldn't say that what I've expressed here is "Original Research" - it was a basic restatement of much of the first part of the article, and a restatement of the research of Ian Moseby, Scot McKnight, N.T. Wright and other scholarly observers of the movement.  I do object to the inclusion of thinly-sourced information from discernmentalist sources (like apprising.org, which is a blog, not a verifiable source), and similar sources (like John MacArthur and D.A. Carson) which paint with a broad brush and lazily equate the ECM and Emergent as synonymous, or treat MacLaren as the primary spokesman for the ECM, when - at most - he speaks for EV.  Driscoll sits somewhere between MacArthur and more serious researchers, with more credibility, since he has been part of the movement, but even he ignores almost everything that has happened outside the United States and elevates MacLaren (someone he knows personally and admittedly has a strained relationship with).


 * While I don't have a problem with your restructuring of the article, I do not think the bad blood between the Reformed authors and MacLaren belong in this particular article. If such a discussion does need documentation, it belongs in an article on Emergent Village - a discrete entity, not a movement - and not in the article on the movement, itself.  Again, going back to the Phelps analogy, you ask "Is Emergent Village part of the Emerging Church Movement?", and I would ask "Is the Westboro Baptist Church part of the Baptist Church.  Yes, it most certainly is, but it is not accurately representative of the entire movement it came from, nor would most churches that have been part of the movement recognize it - or criticisms of it - as valid of themselves.  Thus, if the "debates" need to be referenced, they should be mentioned in an article that focuses on the actual subject of the debates - Emergent/Emergent Village - and not on the much broader movement, for which Emergent Village is not representative.

I can request an arbitration, if you would prefer.--Lyonscc (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that critique should be focused where it is due. I agree that a separate article on Emergent could clarify things. However, I assess McLaren as much more influential than you do. I think the Driscoll article backs me up. As we have to stick to published sources, what reference do you bring to play? Equally, if there has been a response to MacArthur, we need to see it. Hyper3 (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, Driscoll's article (and I would note that this article is actually just a written summation of a Driscoll sermon from his "Religion Saves" series - not a scholarly paper) backs up my contention that McLaren is only representative in one "stream" of the ECM, and therefore cannot be seen as representative of the whole. His cited source for the "three streams" is Ed Stetzer, who has a much more detailed journal article on the subject.  Again, he places McLaren in only one stream ("Revisionists"), and notes that this stream is the most radical of the streams and is very different from the other two.  Also, I would point to Scot McKnight's scholarly lecture and CT Article, linked to the main article, where he describes "five streams" (which Stetzer references and builds on in the above journal article).  McKnight has also taken D.A. Carson (John MacArthur's primary source in his book and articles) to task for boiling the entire ECM down to MacLaren, and then characterizing MacLaren in ways he would not even agree with.  Stetzer (and by extension, Driscoll), McKnight and even MacArthur all admit that their evaluations/critiques are about the North American manifestation of the Emerging Church Movement (which also makes MacLaren smaller, when considering that North America is only a small part of the church.  Ian Mosby's book (also referenced in the article) focuses more on the non-US roots of the church, and MacLaren is barely a player, at all, in his research.
 * Lets put all this in. Hyper3 (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Stetzer writes "reading one book or hearing one speaker considered to reside within the Emergent Church does not constitute interaction. Too many have undertaken partial engagement. While D. A. Carson rightly evaluated Brian McLaren in his book, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, many would be quick to point out that McLaren does not represent the diversity that is present in the Emergent Church. In other words, you cannot become conversant with the emerging church by reading only Brian McLaren (with a little Steve Chalke) particularly when you only read about them and you do not read them."
 * I agree. Hyper3 (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * He also notes the diversity (and notes its lack of any formal structure): "As noted earlier, the E/EC finds expression within nearly every denomination in the United States. Some expressions may be more formal than others, but the movement has attracted attention widely."
 * Yup. Hyper3 (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Just following the refs on the main article, along with those noted in the papers/lectures I just highlighted, it is evident that MacLaren is only representative of one small part of the whole. As to why he is so often targeted/characterized when "controversy" is conflated to the entire ECM?  If one were to look at the Christian blogosphere, the two most vocal camps (if you believe the Top 100 lists, traffic reports, etc.) are 1) Reformed Christians, and 2) Emergent Christians.  However, if you look at actual numbers of believers (focusing on North American statistics - I used to have a link, but it's not working now - I can go try to find the actual stats, if you believe they are relevant enough to try and categorize this as "Original Research"), Reformed Christians only make up 5% of the Protestant Christian Church and Emergent Christians, less than 1%.  The most vocal individuals in any group end up becoming distorted caricatures of the whole.
 * We should reflect this in the article. Hyper3 (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe we can agree that 1) MacLaren belongs in only one subset of the ECM; 2) He does not speak for the whole; 3) The ECM has no centralized structure, so there is no "doctrinal statement" to be derived from them.  With this in mind, we must be careful not to fall into the trap - mentioned by multiple authors, including Driscoll's source, Ed Stetzer - of equating any one person's views as representative of the whole.   As Stetzer notes, Driscoll, himself, falls into one of the streams of the ECM - "Relevants".  And Driscoll is probably the most outspoken in that stream.  It would be no more accurate to characterize the ECM as "homophobic misanthropes" (one of the inaccurate, but common, critiques of Driscoll and Mars Hill Church in Seattle) than it would be to characterize them as uncritically accepting homosexuality (one of the inaccurate, but common, critiques of Brian MacLaren).  Both Driscoll and MacLaren are within the bounds of the ECM, yet neither can speak for the whole.
 * I agree. Hyper3 (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * (I would also contend that, even though we have no solid numbers of ECM churches, since they are not centralized, the largest ones (and probably the bulk of those in the North American movement) are almost all in the "Relevant" category. The most outspoken churches in the "Revisionist" stream - like Solomon's Porch in Minneapolis - despite their outsized public voice, are actually rather small in membership.  But that's a topic for another day.)--Lyonscc (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Have commented above after your paragraphs. I still think, given all that you have said, McLaren's role is important. Please nuance and make all the points you have made, but still McLaren will be prominent, due to his views, writings, and contoversy following. Consequently, I think where criticism has been made of the ECM that really belongs to McLaren, we should make that clear. Nonetheless McLaren is a subset of the ECM that is much more important than Phelps in the Baptists. His role must be explained, distinctions must be made and so on. I think we are close to agreeing, and would ask that you make edits from your knowledge that bring out the full story. Please track my work to make sure Mclaren stands only for himself and not the whole movement, important as he is.Hyper3 (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hyper3 - I will start on something this weekend, looking to what already exists in the article for any inclusion/insertions. I'd hate to start an entirely new section on McLaren, as we are probably already at the point of giving him undue weight, other than documenting that he ought not be given undue weight, since he is representative of only one small part of the Emerging Church Movement.

ECM and homosexuality
Hyper/Lyons - please suggest where EC leader's views on homosexuality - which differ markedly from those in traditional evangelical churches - could be inserted in this article Journalist492 (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Needs to be associated with the person who said it rather than the whole ECM. Hyper3 (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Journalist492 - are you talking about Mark Driscoll (who is strongly against homosexual practice by professed Christians), or Brian MacLaren (who is at the other end of the spectrum), or Dan Kimball (who sees homosexuality as something incompatible with practicing Christianity but not something that deserves emphasis in the public square)? You're probably better off including such views, if/when they are significant, on the individual wikipedia pages of public figures, since there is no "position" or singular view within the Emerging Church Movement on the practice of homosexuality.  The point of part of the discussion Hyper and I have been having is that the ECM isn't anything like a denomination that would allow you to point to some sort of doctrinal trend or statement - it is a movement (as the title implies) or a response to a shift in society.  So, some ECM churches that came out of more liberal branches of Christianity ("Revisionists") will continue to be more liberal, while those that came out of the more conservative branches of Christianity ("Relevants") will continue to be more theologically conservative.


 * Oops! I see I had an edit conflict with Hyper3.  Yes - I would agree with him/her - it should be associated with the Wikipedia page of the person who said it, if it is relevant to their bio, rather than the whole ECM.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have put relevant comments on Rob Bell and Brian McLaren 22:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalist492 (talk • contribs)

General revision needed to create readable prose
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)


 * 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)

Spam
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)

See Also, Narnia
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)
 * 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)

WHY POST-Evangelical?
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)

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links 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)

post-modernism and logos what?
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)

26 July 2023 edits
Hi

I was editing this article a few days ago. It needed some disambiguation of links, and since I was there, I attended to some reformatting, fixing dead links, and so on. One thing I thought it was in dire need of was a more enlightening lead that summarised the article as a whole: I did a kind of rough-and-ready job on that, using existing material.

Today, when I was researching and thinking about how to improve the article a bit more, looking through past edits, I saw your July changes to the article. Before I bumble in and make more wholesale changes, I'm hoping you will help me understand some aspects of your edit. There are things I'm not really sure about.

For example, why remove a dead-linked citation that had an archive link, replacing it with to a bare-url citation to the same deadlink, as here? or, again, this:
 * Old version: ""
 * Your change: "See article written by Steve Collins at http://www.alternativeworship.org/definitions_awec.html"
 * Old version:
 * Your change: "http://emergingchurch.info/reflection/ianmobsby/theology.htm"

Another example: Is there a purpose behind changing the preexisting blockquotes formats to quotations?

And, most especially, it's not completely clear why some deletions of sourced material were made.

There are several other queries I have. I can see that you edit fairly infrequently, so posting this on the article talk page, in case other editors have some ideas about improving the article. Hope to hear from you. Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Decided to move the above post (with minor changes) from the user's talk to here. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the note. If you don't want my edits on the wiki page, that's fine. Wikipedia content is not true research, anyway. However, I don't know anything about the edits you mentioned. I didn't change those links, but I did copy/paste some lengthy sections, so that might be a site engine glitch.
 * Either way, the ad hominem argument that I "edit infrequently" is just more justification for Wikipedia's lack of trustworthiness. The implication is that those who spend more time editing wiki pages are obviously more reliable researchers. It's a pretty broken system, given that my recent edits to the page were updates to a concept that was misrepresented by jaded input on the site.
 * Sorry you were offended. Thanks for communicating, though. You can do whatever you like with my input. 😉 206.180.157.111 (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the note. If you don't want my edits on the wiki page, that's fine. Wikipedia content is not true research, anyway. However, I don't know anything about the edits you mentioned. I didn't change those links, but I did copy/paste some lengthy sections, so that might be a site engine glitch.
 * Either way, the ad hominem argument that I "edit infrequently" is just more justification for Wikipedia's lack of trustworthiness. The implication is that those who spend more time editing wiki pages are obviously more reliable researchers. It's a pretty broken system, given that my recent edits to the page were updates to a concept that was misrepresented by jaded input on the site.
 * Sorry you were offended. Thanks for communicating, though. You can do whatever you like with my input. 😉 PlaidRadish (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no offence intended by my mention of "infrequent editing". It was merely to explain why I posted, so that anyone might comment, and to kind of indicate I'd happily wait some time for a response. People vary widely in how often they like to edit and that's perfectly understandable. How is that an attack or in any way ad hominem? I was not in the least bit offended by your edits, just hoping to understand. I am genuinely sorry, that what I thought was a friendly approach appeared like just the opposite.
 * I have no wish to "do what I like with" your edits, as I prefer collegial efforts; that is the whole reason I left you a message. I feel really disheartened: was my post really so negative? Just to be clear: You seemed knowlegeable about and interested in the topic; I was asking for your input on what I couldn't understand. Is that bad? AukusRuckus (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)