Talk:Emerging church/Introduction 3: Proposed Introduction

Introduction Discussion #3: Proposed Introduction
''The Emerging Church developed in the late 20th Century into the 21st Century as a dialogue in Western Europe, North America, and the South Pacific concerned with the deconstruction and reconstruction of protestant Christianity. Its development stemmed from a mix of a lack of growth in protestant churches, particularly amongst generation x; concern over how the Church would adept to postmodernity; opposition to fundamentalist doctrines and practices in the modern church; a modern neglect of ancient Christian tradition and practices; the need for an ecumenical, catholic Church; increasing suspicion of the market-driven church, mega-church, institutionalized Christianity, and its missiology. By 2005, the Emerging Church was also occurring to some extent in Asia, Africa, and South America affirming scholars and thinkers that the dialogue had grown to become an incipient movement. ''

Based on the discussion we've been having, I would like to propose this change to the introduction. It is a rewrite of the Intro. It maybe a temp replacement until we can write the rest of the article. Feel free to comment. I would like to make these changes within the next 7 days. Thanks. --Artisan949 21:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * A dialogue supposes that there is some other party, perhaps involved in the discussion. Why not just use the word conversation and identify who it is among: some pastor and leaders in the evangelical church. Which scholars and thinkers are citing that the "emerging church" is a movement? ==charleswear


 * Yes, I prefer "conversation" as well. Don't you think though that conversation means other people / party is involved as well?  At any rate, "conversation" is more genuine of the EC.  The following suggest the EC is a movement: Emerging Churches (manuscript), Gibbs & Bolger; And Becoming Conversant w/ the EC, Carson as well as various other critics.  In this discussion, Jones said that some   aspects of the global EC prefer movement over conversation.  Thus, movement should be included though I know many (including myself) do not agree with that term. --Artisan949 15:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, charleswear earlier made mention of the redundancy of "incipient." I agree and will drop it from this proposal. With the changes, thus far, the proposal now reads: The Emerging Church developed in the late 20th Century into the 21st Century as a conversation in Western Europe, North America, and the South Pacific concerned with the deconstruction and reconstruction of protestant Christianity.  Its development stemmed from a mix of a lack of growth in protestant churches, particularly amongst generation x; concern over how the Church would adept to postmodernity; opposition to fundamentalist doctrines and practices in the modern church; a modern neglect of ancient Christian tradition and practices; the need for an ecumenical, catholic Church; increasing suspicion of the market-driven church, mega-church, institutionalized Christianity, and its missiology.  In 2005, the Emerging Church was also occurring to some extent in Asia, Africa, and South America affirming scholars and thinkers that the conversation had grown to become a movement. Additionally, there will be a section that addresses the tension between the labels. --Artisan949 17:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Is "adept" the word you want to use, or is it "adapt"? charleswear


 * Hah. Oops.  You are right.  Adapt would be correct.  Not adept.  That will be changed whenever we publish.  Thanks.  Do you think everything else is OK?  --Artisan949


 * Without further discussion, changes were made today. --Artisan949 00:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I have come late to this whole conversation (pun intended). And, having read the Emerging Church entry found it for the most part to be very weighted to the North American context/world view. The introduction starting off with mention of the South Pacific got to me if you are refering to what is happening in Australia and New Zealand then it should say so. The South Pacific is significantly more that Australia and New Zealand and I am not sure that the church community in a lot of the Pacific islands are going through the experience. --entheos 02:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)