Talk:Emerging church/Archive 5

This archive contains conversations from August to October, 2006.

Non-Favorable Blogs
Aslansrock's addition of worship.com to the blog list presents a dilemma. The blog is more critical of EC than favorable (though it's tone is quite gentle). Nevertheless, we don't have a section for anti EC blogs (of which there are many) and many pro EC blogs are listed. I don't think worship.com belongs in the favorable blog section. Should we create a critical blog section? It could fill up quickly.--Will3935 05:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a blog section divided into supporting and critical would be good, its how the rest of the article is generally broken up. I would suggest maybe doing just the top 10, 15 or 20. When it comes to blogs I think thats fair. I even think 20 is too much. The tough part will be deciding which blogs represent the cream of the crop from the blog-sphere.--Derek Spalla 21:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I created a critical blogs section. Feel free to add to it or delete from it.  No doubt anti-EC bloggers will eventually add their blogs to the list as have pro-EC bloggers.  I guess we will just have to keep on eye on it to see that no insignificant, little blogs stay on the list while more prominent ones are ignored.--Will3935 23:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good.--Derek Spalla 03:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Derek -- someone deleted Rob Bell from the prominent figures list, but I put him back on. You may want to keep an eye on that.--Will3935 22:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Will, I'll do that. It would be nice if everyone would discuss changes like that here first.--Derek Spalla 00:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that external links to individual blogs (both pro and con) do not belong in an encyclopedic article since they do not fall under the category of reliable sources and tend to be purely one person's opinion. Links to blog lists or search engines might be appropriate.  Gold Dragon 02:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that blogs are not reliable sources. I find them linked to many Wikipedia articles, however.  Do you know if there is a specific policy about this?  If so, it does not seem to be enforced.  Would you suggest we remove all links to blogs?  The bloggers themselves seem to keep adding links to their blogs, so I suspect they will all eventually be back if we delete them.  Anyone else have any thoughts on this?--Loudguy 05:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here are some quotes from the Manual of Style page on External Links.


 * "Wikipedia is not a web directory; no page should be dominated by or consist solely of a collection of external links. It is always preferred to use internal links over external links. However, adding a small number of relevant external links can be a valuable service to our readers.
 * Links normally to be avoided
 * Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard."
 * Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard."
 * Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard."


 * Policies are enforced by us, the editors of a Wikipedia page and the fact that other editors do not follow the guidelines outlined in the manual of style is irrelevant to whether we should. There may be exceptions to some blogs that may have encyclopedic value.  But that has not been the case with any I've seen so far and will continue to remove links to blogs.  I believe we need to remove many of our external links, both pro and con from this page, not just blogs.  If the links are valuable, they can be used as refences for points made within the article and then removed as an external link.  Gold Dragon 12:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We should strive to be have a high quality article and not compare to the worst articles in Wikipedia. The best articles on Wikipedia often have under five highly relevant external links.  Check out historically featured articles for comparisons. Gold Dragon 12:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I think the problem started with the fact that blogs are so much a part of the identity of EC that it seemed quite legitimate to have at least a couple of them such as theooze linked to the article. Once people saw that blogs were linked they linked others. This is a scary prospect since it seems like there are an almost infinite number of EC blogs. When someone linked a non-favorable blog to the blogs, we then felt obliged to create a non-favorable blogs section. I'm in favor of deleting the non-favorable blogs section and keeping only a couple of favorable blogs. I'm also willing to delete some of the critical articles linked since that does seem unnecessarily long. 71.92 linked an incredible article by this Kowalski guy (after I had deleted it from the list). I don't have the heart to upset 71.92 and delete the article he had the good judgment to link. Kowalski has recently made some minor revisions in that article that makes it even better than it was. By the way, Gold Dragon I'm at the point where I may just provide paranthetical references within the criticisms section that will match books in the critical books section. Anyone more techno-saavy than I am can turn them into endnotes. Also, I agree with you about the length of the emerging vs. emergent section. We constructed a rather modest section after much dialogue. The real culprit was Ifyourhappyandyouknowit who made some radical revisions and additions to it without discussing it here. I edited his/her revisions a little but left some of the revised content of his/her additions intact. I would not be against slimming the section down a little. While I'm at it, everyone seems to think the introductory section is too brief. The article really does not supply much of the history of the movement. I think some info on that could beef up that section.Will3935 21:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Values and Characteristics
I am somewhat uncomfortable with the use of the term "generous orthodoxy" to describe one of the values of the emerging church, simply because it has such an obvious connection to McLaren (who is already quite prominent in this article). I agree with the description of this characteristic (although one could ask how it differs from the last "conversation / dialogue" characteristic); it is simply the use of the title that seems a little partisan. I can't seem to think of an alternative just at the moment; perhaps someone else more creative than I could? --Green Door 15:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Although McLaren has popularized the term "generous orthodoxy" he did not invent it. Hans Frei coined the term and other emergents used it before McLaren.  I believe the reason McLaren titled one of his books A Generous Orthodoxy was because this was a term and a concept already accepted in emergent circles.  It seems to me that this "generous orthodoxy" is a natural result of the postmodern epistemology that characterizes the movement.  I think "generous orthodoxy" should stay in the article for these reasons.  McLaren also uses all of the other terms found in Values and Characteristics.  Should we find new words for all of them simply because McLaren uses them?  If we eliminate all terminology McLaren uses we will also have to find a new title for the article and never refer to "emerging."  As for McLaren's "prominence in the article" he is only mentioned once other than his inclusion in the list of prominent figures along with many other names.  Driscoll and Seay are also mentioned beside their inclusion in the list (Driscoll Twice).  If anything, it seems to me that McLaren's prominence in the movement is not reflected in the article. Will3935 18:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Gold Dragon: I agree with you that "Creating a safe environment for those with different opinions to talk and listen with an attitude of grace when there are disagreements" is a value of the emerging church movement. I have spent many long hours trying to dialogue with emergents and have discovered this is only a characteristic of the movement when it applies to such people as Wiccans or Hindus. With a few exceptions (such as 71.92 and yourself) I have found emergents to be, as a rule, quite rude and intolerant toward conservative Evangelicals. McLaren is one notable exception to this, but the courteous tone he maintains is another exception to the rule. If the rude majority think intolerance is an absolute sin they are hypocrites. If they do not think intolerance is an absolute sin why do they judge Evangelicals for not tolerating sin or heresy? Just venting. Not going to change anything.Will3935 22:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is unfortunate that some emergents have taken that attitude towards evangelicals and hopefully they will grow up. I consider myself to be an evangelical who attends an evangelical church with a wife, parents and many friends who are modernist evangelicals that cannot identify with the emergent church.  Being a baptist, I also enjoy the company of a strongly conservative evangelical/fundamentalist baptist message board.  Having an attitude of grace in disagreement with non-emergent evangelicals is important for me to interact with those I love and interact with on a regular basis.  Gold Dragon 03:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop embarassing yourself Will. Don't you realize that logical propositions went out with bellbottoms and tie-dyed shirts?Loudguy 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Balance
I made some changes to keep the article balanced. It seems to me that some of the wording was misleading and I don't believe Chris Seay is quite in the same category as Mark Driscoll. If someone can correct me about Seay I will be happy to reverse that particular change.Loudguy 01:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting History?
I realize that emergents assert that propositional thinking began with the Enlightenment and the modern era. This is a gross oversimplification. Perhaps they have never read Aristotle. Likewise it is a gross oversimplification and a misleading statement to say that hermeneutics which seek to arrive at authorial intent began with the Enlightenment. Allegorical schools of interpretation existed prior to the Enlightenment but it is untrue to say that seeking authorial intent began with the Enlightenment. An internet article which alludes to this can be found at []. Furthermore, "postmodern" hermeneutics did not drop out of the sky on a specific day and time in the recent past. Like everything else "postmodern" it developed gradually out of the more liberal tendencies that grew in modern thought. I agree with those scholars such as Thomas Oden who consider "postmodern" hermeneutics more "ultramodern" than "post" anything. I discussed this at length with Dr. James Hernando, professor of hermeneutics who wrote the book Dictionary of Hermeneutics. He told me emergent hermeneutics were nothing more than the full fruition of liberal hermeneutics. With all due respect to Nancy Murphy et. al. the distinction between Evangelical and Emergent hermeneutics is conservative vs. liberal not modern vs. postmodern. I know the emergent contributors to this article wish to portray their movement in the most favorable light possible, but it violates scholastic integrity to rewrite history in an effort to do so. Will3935 09:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that propositional thinking began way before the enlightenment. I also agree that hermeneutics have sought to arrive at authorial intent since folks started reading the bible. I also agree that postmodern hermeneutics gradually grew out of modern thought and was influenced by both liberal and conservative tendencies found within modern thought.  I did not suggest anything contrary to any of those positions but I can see how some folks may incorrectly read that into my statements.  The rest of your post is opinion which I disagree with which may belong in the Criticism section of this article but not in the section describing the biblical hermeneutics of the emergent church.


 * However it is true that since the enlightenment, the field of biblical hermeneutics has strongly emphasized the primacy of authorial intent and cultural context at the exclusion of other aspects found historically in biblical hermeneutics. While the pros and cons of that shift depends on which hermeneut you talk to, the reality of that shift is not revisionist at all.  And neither is the reality that postmodern biblical hermeneutics moves away from a percieved over-emphasis on authorial intent and context while still considering it an important part of hermeneutics.  I think it was a valuable shift to emphasize authorial intent and cultural context in a time when certainty was culturally important.  But I also see the postmodern shift in recognizing the reader's contribution to hermeneutics to be a valuable shift when culturally, people are becoming more and more aware of the impact their own biases have on how they view the world.


 * Anyway, suggest some changes and hopefully we can improve this section without making it too long (preferably no more than two sentences). I think that back-and-forth editing has been helpful in improving other sections and would be here too.  I'll search if there is another Wikipedia page on postmodern hermeneutics that we could Wikilink to for a more detailed discussion. Gold Dragon 13:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I just deleted the part about the enlightenment and kept the rest of your statement intact. My deletion does not change your intended meaning and it satisfies me.  Is that a decent compromise?Will3935 05:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So your solution is to remove all pro-emergent blog links and leave the anti-emergent blog links?


 * No one had ever suggested this. I am not sure why you speak this way.  I see that you have deleted all of the critical blogs and left several pro-EC blogs.  To maintain NPOV I think we should delete all blogs per Wikipedia policy, which is what I will do.Will3935 00:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms
Gold Dragon was right to move the critical statement about emergent faith to the criticisms section. The only problem now is that it seems redundant, since that issue is already addressed in the criticisms section. Also, it does not fit the flow of the paragraph. It's just hanging there like a deformed appendage. If no one objects before long I will delete it.Will3935 18:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Self Promotion
I thought self promotion violated Wikipedia policy. Is it OK for Jason Clark to add himself to the prominent figures list?Will3935 22:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Will3935, i am ok with jason adding himself to the list of "prominent figures" - i think it serves a purpose and he is a voice worth hearing. what i have found hard over the past is that this is a game for some, they remove who they do not like - add who they like and come back to remove the names others add. at one time i recommended reading this def - but now, i tell people not even to go, it has lost a great dealof meaning. ginkworld 00:31 10.10.07 [EST]

I Question the Value of this Article
in reading this article over the past year, and watching the people involved in writing it, i have to say i question the motives of some very active voices. it seems they are removing a great deal of what the emerging/evolving church is about and replacing it with what those who are against us have to say. it seems to me that this is filled with missinformation, and personal agendas. i am uncomfortable with that style - and over the past i have voiced this concern only to come back and see my worlds removed from the comments. i find it wrong and so not what we as an emerging/evolving community should be about - but i wonder who is and is not a supporter of the emerging/evolving in all this? ginkworld 00:27 10.10.07 [EST]

Let's Just Be Honest
First, it was Gold Dragon, one of the most pro-EC editors working on this article who deleted Jason for self-promotion. You unfairly impugn Gold Dragon's character and presume the worst concerning his motives while I believe his actions illustrate his integrity. I believe you owe Gold Dragon (a fellow emergent) a sincere apology. JOK, you are on Wikipedia's turf here. This is not an emergent blog. It is an objective, encyclopedia with rules, one of which is against self promotion. The rules apply to everyone. The fact that you are "OK" with something is irrelevant if you are on someone else's turf and they have rules that apply to everyone, including emergents such as yourself. Secondly, regarding the value of the article it will only be as valuable as it is honest and objective. I know "objective" is not a good postmodern word, but it is a concept many people value nonetheless. In Soul Tsunami, p.21, Len Sweet advises emergents to learn to speak out of both sides of their mouth. If they choose to do so in their books and blogs that is their prerogative, but even emergents must respect the purpose and principles of an encyclopedia if they wish to contribute to it. Face the facts JOK, an encyclopedia is a "modern" tool (first developed in the dreaded enlightenment) that is designed to accurately report objective truth as opposed to emoting the narrative of a given community's "authentic reality" that need not correspond to factual reality. You question who does or does not support the emergent movement. That, again is irrelevant. The question for a Wikipedia article is who does or does not support a factual telling of the objective truth. The measurement of the value of an encyclopedia article (as opposed to a blog article) about any organization or movement (Masons, Scientologists, Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Catholics etc. etc.) is not how well it advances the cause of a given movement but how accurately it tells the truth (which correpsonds to reality)about that movement. Encyclopedias are not intended to be a platform for misleading propoganda by proponents of a movement that speaks out of both sides of the mouth. Thus, by defininition, a legitimate encyclopedia article about EC can never be one you value. As you seem to have found it difficult (for quite some time) to conduct yourself in this forum with the same level of emotional maturity as other emergent editors such as Gold Dragon, I would advise you to stick to your blogs where you can safely ignore such "modern" inconveniences as consistent use of terms, objectivity, and facts. I know that sounds harsh, JOK. I'm sure you are a very nice person (people who know you have said so), but you simply must learn what the rules and methods are for an objective, truthful article in Wikipedia and you must face the fact that its purpose is truth (in the "modern" sense) and not promotion of your movement that puts the best cosmetic appearance upon it while censoring those issues that you know will be controversial. In other words, Wikipedia is a place where people are supposed to "play fair" and "shoot straight," two concepts that are not demanded by postmodern epistemology (and thus, apparently by you as well). You only make yourself look bad when you emote so childishly over the fact that an encyclopedia article takes on the real characteristics of an encyclopedia article rather than merely support your biased agenda which I very strongly believe is misleading.Will3935 22:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC) will3935, let's be honest, i actually had a very long, point by point response to your comments. but decided if my asking a simple question [one of maybe 3 comments i have ever made here] provokes this kind of response, my voice falls on deaf ears, and you have answered my question - thank you for your time. ginkworld 02:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC) will3935, i question your motives and heart - i just noticed, as i was posting my response, that you have changed your original comments by adding sections [without noting you did so, bad form] - i know you do not think highly of me, being the "insignificant," "childish," "imature" person you claim i am - but i was hoping more from you. ginkworld 02:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Jok -- There is no rule against editing one's comments as there is against self promotion in the Wikipedia handbook or as there is against judging one's motives and heart in the Bible. You have no substantial response so you resort to ad hominems as I suspected you might.  I don't know why you think it is bad form to edit one's own comments (perhaps you can explain -- I've never heard any reasoning advanced for such a position before).  I happen to know that McLaren revises and edits his work which is done for publication.  Have you similarly rebuked him for this "bad form?"  It's fascinating how you postmoderns can so cavalierly disregard objective, external authorities such as the Wikipedia handbook yet so confidently impose your own temporarily fancied subjective standards on selective targets.  My form is "authentic" to me.  All kidding aside, I am having severe health problems at this time (which also makes me grouchier than usual [so watch yourself bud]) and editing helps me to go back and check and revise what I have done earlier since earlier work may be incomplete or flawed -- I never dreamed anyone would rebuke me for it and I still don't understand what aspect of it you find so objectionable.  (Hey, I've heard Rush needs some help mocking Michael J. Fox.  Maybe you can give him a hand.)  Jok, one thing that seems to escape you still is that all of this petty bickering about motives, editing one's comments etc. is totally irrelevant to the purpose of this page and to the purpose of Wikipedia.  It's Not all about John O'Keefe's feelings.  Nor is it about impugning the integrity of those who disagree with you. It is all about creating a quality article that is true to the facts.  If you expected anything other than my telling you the truth, it is clear you do not know me at all.  I believe "conversation" involves listening sometimes.  I have spent many, many more hours listening to emergent views than responding to them.  It would not hurt you to allow critical voices on ginkworld (or to have done so on the old postmodern_theology where the views of "moderns" were not welcomed)and you should not be so insecure that you feel threatened by those who disagree with you.  I respect you as a person (as I said, those who know you say you are likeable) and I love you as a brother, but I do not respect some of your conduct within the bounds of Wikipedia (which is supposed to be neutral turf).  I do not say that to anger you but to help you. Sometimes the wounds of a friend are better than the kisses of an enemy.  By the way, I still think you owe fellow emergent Gold Dragon an apology for impugning his motives.  I highly respect him even though I do not always agree with him.Will3935 22:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * well, will we are not going to see eye to eye on much - and i have no problems with my not agreeing with you. i am glad you "love me as a brother" because your words speak very different. i voiced a concern and never mentioned anyone by name, you turned it personal.  i never once mentioned anyone by name, nor did i ever imply a name - you did that.  i simply made a statement concering the direction of the article from what it was in the past - you could have addressed my concerns, but you selected to insult me instead.  this article is turning into a "bash the emerging church" article and not a article about it - you can disagree with that, and i am ok with you doing so - but you have no right to then insult me and belittle my views - i find that insulting.  i simply seem to be saying what others have wanted to say but felt they could not say for what ever reason they have.  so, brfore you desire to keep turning this into a "yo mama" contest, address the issue at hand.  ginkworld 00:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Gee Jok, I heard yo mama was so fat that....No seriously, I thought I had addressed the issues at hand and I mentioned Gold Dragon because he is the one who deleted Jason (which you complained of). This page is not for childish arguing anyway.  If you have anything substantial to specifically discuss concerning the article I would be happy to.  I have thoroughly enjoyed working with a variety of emergents on this article.  We have always managed to express our views as vigorously as we can, come up with a compromise, and end up as friends.  I wish such had been possible with us.  Blessings on you until we have something specific to discuss regarding the article (just take your medication first -- only kidding).  I know you are upset that there are criticisms of the movement in the article and I wish I could make you feel better about that Jok, but the fact is that the movement has been criticized and any responsible article will tell all the relevant facts.  I know I talk tough sometimes but that does not mean I hate you or do not love you as a brother.  Just think of me as a tough debater.  Also, when one is as sick as I have been one stops caring if others consider them to be a sweetheart.  That probably is a bad thing, I must admit.  Please forgive me for the tone I have used on this occasion and for the tone I will likely use on the next.Will3935 06:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, by the way everyone (look JOK I started a new message instead of editing the old one -- Great Form Huh!)I have a new article I am submitting for publication on emergent epistemology. I don't mean to sound condescending to the less educated but it is written for a Seminary Journal and thus presumes a certain level of education in the reader. If any emergents would like to critique it and offer corrections etc. before I have it published I would be grateful. I made changes to the last article I had posted online after several emergents offered legitimate criticisms of it once it had been posted. It would be less embarassing to make the corrections before publication this time. Just tell me if you are willing. I'll make arrangements to send it to you. Thanks!!!!Will3935 08:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear your doing poorly physically again Will.Loudguy 13:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * will, i would love to read it and i hope all is well for you. while i have no problem with critism, i am a bit tossed back to see that it is one sided.  that at one point there was a list of emerging books, articles and sites that support an emerging view - but they were removed and yet the list of critics books, articles and sites has not been removed - why?  i think, they sould either be removed, or a list of resources that are supportive of the emerging must be added.  i believe most of the the resources are one sided, and resources that are added that speak for the emerging are removed - that is what i am not good with, and that is what i was addressing in the heading "i question the value of this article."  i do not find this article ver "balanced" and i believe that needs to be addressed - some have tried before, but where shut out of the process in one form or another - me, while i am a nice guy i also am the guy who will stand his ground - so, baring any major objection i will be adding resources on the emerging side - let me know :) ginkworld 15:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Jok: That is what this is all about. I have encouraged emergent participation and additions.  I welcome yours.  Gold Dragon and I have vigorously duked it out many times before coming to a friendly compromise.  Just be aware that Wikipedia has rules against self promotion and against using Wikipedia articles as a web directory for blogs and websites.  Thus, while you may add substantive articles to the section which already exists for that, you will find that any and all blogs of any persuasion will be deleted (most likely by Gold Dragon or myself).  The list of names is growing so long that we may eventually have to create a link to an article dedicated to just names of participants.  That was the only reason we tried to keep it pared down at one point -- not that there was any kind of blacklist or anything.  I, for one, give up on keeping the list of prominent figures brief and anticipate the day when such a division may need to take place.  By the way, I am a very thick skinned old bird.  I worked for a while teaching secondary English before pastoring.  After experiencing Jr. High boys there is very little anyone can say to hurt my feelings, but I do find that I am occassionally insensitive to other's feelings.  Not everyone has either been in the marines (not that I was)or taught Jr. High boys.  Sorry I can be such a jerk at times.  If you need advice, Gold Dragon always seems to know how to calm me down when I get grouchy (my health problems really do exacerbate my already entrenched tendency to be honery). I don't really mean anything deeply hateful when I use strong rhetoric.  I'm just zealous and insensitive.  I'm not sure I'm reading you right about my article. Are you volunteering to critique it?  If so I will email a copy of it to ginkworld.  If you don't mind, let me know more specifically about that.  By the way, I heard yo mama was so fat they had to detour the interstate highway around her.Will3935 22:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One more thought...The area of emergent practice that most interests me is in their approaches to ecclesiology. I have long been part of an established denomination and have seen the flaws inherent in this structure.  Forgive the alliteration, but this structure tends to promote professional politicians and punish principled prophets.  I am very interested in learning anything new that EC can contribute to the subject of ecclesiology.Will3935 22:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, you guys have been busy since I've last checked in. Will3935, you embarass me with all the props you've given me.  I'll remember to pray for your health.  But I must agree with ginkworld that the article has taken a strong anti-emergent POV which is not good for an NPOV encyclopedia.  I'm guilty of not helping to fix that but I've been pretty busy starting up school again and I've recently been accepted into med school over in ginkworld's side of the world.  Anyway, I hope you guys can improve this article without the bickering that brings shame to the name of our mutual Lord.  Gold Dragon 05:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Gold Dragon, just cause I gave you the props you genuinely earned does not mean that I agree with your point here. I believe the article is actually biased in favor of EC but I do not realistically hope to make this article totally neutral. The problem revolves around the use of language. An Evangelical reading this article who has not spent hundreds of hours on emergent blogs or read dozens of emergent books (both of which I have done) would come away with a different understanding of the article than that intended by emergent authors (I know, I know -- I really shouldn't open the can of worms involved with the subject of authorial intent). If you will indulge me in a quote from Rob Bowman:

"Ironically, when the meaning or use of certain words is disputed,often it is because false teachers have come along and attached novel meanings to words commonly used in Christian doctrine. Typically they will assert that the church has misunderstood the biblical doctrine related to this word, and now they are going to set everyone straight. Then, when there misuse or misdefinition of terms is challenged, they will sometimes hide behind the excuse of not wanting to 'fight over words'!" -- Robert M Bowman Jr

It is the misleading use of language. Len Sweet's "talking out of both sides of the mouth" that causes me to believe this article is very over-balanced in favor of being a piece of pro-EC propoganda. I feel that realistically the article as it stands is about as close to a compromise as we are going to come. If you guys want to duke it out some more regarding proposed changes, well then so be it, but I suggest we bury the hatchet at some point and get on with our lives. I do believe Jok's proposal for adding more links to pro-EC articles is valid as there does seem to be a larger number of anti-ec articles linked. Otherwise we are looking at perpetual guerilla warfare over this one little article. I don't know about you guys but I have other things to do. By the way, I appreciate everyone's expressions of concern for my health. I get discouraged and it really does help to know others care and are praying. Thanks.Will3935 09:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)