Talk:Emerging church

Remember that article talk pages are only there to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Please do not use them as a discussion forum.

Archives: Past Discussion

This talk page has been archived. Please see the first topic for links to the archived pages. Future conversations should begin at the bottom of this page; if this page is over 40 kb, please make a new archive page.

Thank you to everyone for contribution to this ongoing project. To help us continue to move forward and according to wikipedia policy, please cite sources for your recommendations. It will help us double check your suggestions. If we could also not make any changes to the main article w/o discussing here first, that would be appreciated. Any changes that cannot be supported by sources may be reverted. Thanks again everyone!!! --Artisan949 18:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"post-churched"?

In searching for information about this movement, I note that the structure seems to be a bit confusing. It begins by noting it is a controversial movement. I would suggest first stating what the movement is and its tenents. Then, later, noting the critique. Througout the article it appears that much is written by critics and it would help readers to be able to differentiate if an editor could go through and separate this.

The lead sentence uses two relatively uncommon words: 'unchurched' and 'post-churched'. Unchurched has a helpful link to what it means, but 'post-churched' leaves me guessing. Is there any way to either provide a short definition, or use another word or phrase here, for those of us not already immersed in emergent jargon? If it's meant to describe someone who once attended church but doesn't anymore, that would seem to fit the definition of 'unchurched' provided at that article, which would make the word redundant. Another more common word would be "ex-Christian." Wesley 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Post-churched refers to Christians who used to be involved in institutional Christianity, but have since removed themselves from it. This is as opposed to "Un-churched", which refers to Christians who have never regularly attended church. You pick up a lot of habits and ways of thinking when you spend a lot of time in an institutional environment. That's an important distinction between the two groups.

The following is not a knock against you, Wesley, but just an observation: It's a telling statement on our society that you associate "post-churched" with "ex-Christian", as if going to church has anything to do with being a Christian. Institutional Christianity, really, has little to do with the teachings of Christ. I used to be "churched" before I seriously began studying what Christ taught. It's too bad that much of society associates "going to church" with "following Christ". Don Dueck 12:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a telling statement on our society, but rather on my Church and and my interpretation of the Bible. In most if not all of Christianity's history, it seems to me that it has assumed the need for some kind of formal structure. Radical invidualism would seem to be more in keeping with our society. Regardless, religious disaffiliation lists several different synonyms that might be possibilities, all of which seem to be more familiar terms. I still think that "post-churched" is not a well-understood term that should be either replaced, or explained better, given its position in the intro. Wesley 16:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wesley. "Post-churched" is a term that few will imidiately recognize, so it should definately either be replaced, or explained, if an alternative term cannot be found. MigB 18:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

QUESTION

This article seems to situate the emergent church movement as "liberal," and mentions only critics on the "right". Is it not accurate to say that the movement is also a critique of the "left" in its rejection of liberal philosophy, and thus critiqued for being sectarian and fideistic? 131.238.30.195 20:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV VIOLATION....

I have to agree strongly with the opening statement on this talk page. The article seems to violate NPOV standards. It is clear where the author(s) stand(s) in terms of his/her/their opinion of the emerging church. This article gives me a very good idea of how the "right" may see the emerging church, but leaves me with little idea of how the emerging church sees itself, or more importantly, how an objective 3rd party would see and describe it. Some MAJOR editing and rearranging is needed. (204.13.98.246 21:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

The article does not spell out liberal criticisms since there are none. Even though classic liberals and emergents arrive at their conclusions through separate routes, Emergent theology is quite liberal so there is no grounds for dispute between these camps. As for NPOV, it seems this has been code over the years used by those who do not wish the unitiated to know the true nature of emergent teachings. Thus, in this article at least, it is a buzzword that precedes efforts at censorship. An encyclopedia is not a format for proponents to mislead the unitiated. This should be an objective article that relates FACTS. The measure of the article should not be how favorably the unitiated may respond to propaganda in the article. The measure of this article should be how truthful, objective, and ACCURATE it is. Those who dislike something in the article should show exactly how its content is not objective or true. I can point to many instances where emergent jargon is misleading in this article but emergents and critics long ago came to a sort of understanding that emergents would not censor the truth so badly if criticsl allowed a bit of misleading emergent jargon. I do hope emergents do not wish to revisit their "NPOV" censorship strategy since the article as it stands is much kinder to emergent doublespeak than the facts warrant. I think at this point honesty and decency should prevail. I have fought vigorously over the last two years to keep out genuine violations of NPOV by critics. I will also fight vigorously to keep out phony NPOV efforts at censorship by proponents.Will3935 01:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

QUERY

Is "mainline" Christianity liberal as opposed to evangelical (or other)? How does one judge? Numbers, perhaps, but we don't seem to have any here. Maybe the best thing would be to remove the word "mainline" all together and just say something like "Emergent Christians often see themselves as bridging the divide between conservative evangelical Christianity and liberal Christianity." What do people think? (163.1.181.208 21:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Doing a google search, "Emerging church movement" brings up 60,000 hits while "Emerging church" brings up over 1 million hits. Additionally, the first sentence of this article redundantly states that the Emerging church movement is a movement. I am changing the title of the article to "Emerging church". Gold Dragon 13:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Emerging church is quite vague and gives the impression that it is a singular identity. It makes more sense to describe it as a movement, which the first line clearly shows that it is proper to do. I see no valid reason for the move. 205.157.110.11 18:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Emerging church is a movement. However, the common name of the movement is the "Emerging church", not the "Emerging church movement". So it is correct to describe the Emerging church as a movement as it already is stated in the opening sentence. The vagueness of the title Emerging church is addressed in the very first sentence of the article and does not require a renaming of the article to address again. Gold Dragon 05:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Emerging church with a lowercase 'c' seems OK as a title for the movement. Organized Christian denominations are normally Churches rather than churches. The name might also cause confusion with the early church that emerged from Greek, Roman and Jewish culture during the first and second centuries; however the word "movement" makes no difference to that confusion. Google indicates that the modern emerging church is most common meaning. Mtford 01:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from emerging church movement to emerging church as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 12:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

This article is just full of jargon. It needs rewriting in plain English. 90.192.184.31 05:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite agree. It needs a thorough cleanup. Jargon, formatting, too many references, and the article is just too long.Youdontsmellbad 10:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The main reason the article contains so much jargon is that the movement is replete with postmodern jargon. The biggest challenge over the years with this article has been to constantly translate ambiguous "emergentese" into plain English. The emergents seem to insist on using their jargon rather than the plain English equivalents. If you rewrite something in plain English you should be certain you know what the emergents really mean by their jargon rather than what they are just trying to imply to the common reader. It seems they are masters of communicating one thing among themselves while sounding more "innocent" or conservative to ignorant outsiders. You really have to know the movement thoroughly to contribute to this article intelligently. Unfortunately, many sincere contributors along the way have not been thoroughly familiar with emergent teachings. I strongly disagree that the article is too long. If you will read the books by Carson, Smith, and Erickson, you will conclude this is article is as brief as it can be. As for references, you guys are arguing contrary to all of the other contributors over the years who have demanded documentation and placed "citation needed" tags. If you pare down the citations they will be asked for again by the emergents who demand them and the critics will provide them. There is a long history to this article (I worked on it for about a year every day a good while back) and there are good reasons for the things you are so cavalierly criticizing.Will3935 13:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Free Speech and Honesty

An anonymous author actually deleted the statement that EC is controversial. The source for this statement is a prominent emergent. Any knowledgable person will tell you this movement is controversial. Anonymous editors are also trying to replace plain English with misleading EC jargon. An encyclopedia is a place for accuracy and clear communication. It is not a forum for misleading propaganda and censorship.Will3935 00:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is fairly obvious that the movement is controversial. Whoever deleted it likely did so in the interest of his or her own agenda. Wikipedia is for knowledge, not personal ideology. Bookwormonmax 11:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That strikes me as an ambiguous argument. Christianity itself is controversial, if a poll were taken among the general population. Similarly, there is considerable controversy within the Christian community, between the many denominations. There is even controversey within so-called mainline denominations -- for eample, Missouri Synod Lutherans consider many of the practiced beliefs of ELCA Lutherans to border on heresey. And so on. So, I would counter-argue that the use of the statement that EC is controversial, is in one sense, quite comical, in another, hypocritical, and anything but honest. To the scientific mind, it is an accurate, but imprecise, description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.75.108 (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Images for the values

For the values section there are a collection of images which are PD available at emerging grace. I think using each of these next to each header, would have a very effective dramatic feel to each of the values. jbolden1517^Talk 15:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

External links template

User:Victoriagirl added the following template:

User:Will3935 removed it.

Victoriagirl just put it back on the grounds that it was "removed without comment or discussion".

So, let's discuss it.

First of all, this article has no "External links" section. Second, the inline references appear to me to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Finally, and this is just a personal opinion, I find this External links template extremely annoying. I think it would be a lot more useful if people would check out the individual links and remove any that don't fit. I move that the template be removed. -Dhodges 22:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just returned the linkfarm tag, which was again removed with no reason given in the accompanying edit summary. Like Dhodges, I'm no great fan of tags. That said, they do serve a purpose in that they draw attention to areas in which attention is needed. While I recognize that there is no "External links" section, the fact is that the 46 or so links described as "Further reading" are, in fact, external links (as an aside, I think any links provided in the references section are fine). This would appear to counter Wikipedia's policy concerning the number of external links. Again, I'm no fan of tags - and I like to think of them as temporary. As one with a limited knowledge of the subject, it was my hope that in placing the tag another might begin pruning (for example, I note that eight websites are included more than once - some three times or more). Victoriagirl 15:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In an effort to at least begin addressing the problem I've removed all deadlinks. I've also removed a review of Brian McLaren's The Secret Message of Jesus as the subject of the book is not the emerging church (indeed references in the review to the "emergent church movement" and "emergent movement" are limited to the first and last sentences).Victoriagirl 03:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A very appropriate tag, Victoriagirl. I think that the entire "Further Reading" section doesn't belong in this article. I am going to remove the entire section and leave a few pro-emergent and a few anti-emergent articles. We should be taking the content from those sources if they are any good and referencing them in the article itself. If other articles are deemed important enough, they can be re-added in. I included the PBS articles because I considered them to be the most neutral source. I included the Christiantiy Today, Scot McKnight and Albert Mohler articles because I see them referenced frequently. It is a little drastic, but I think this article needs to drastic changes from the mess it has become. Gold Dragon 13:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Overly Critical of Movement

I'm concerned that this article as a whole is overly critical of the Emerging Church. Consistent references to a lack of theological grounding as well as a perceived tendancy to cater to the whims of society unfairly characterize the emerging church. Singular references do not justify the statements made throughout the article. Furthermore, quotations contained in boxes are typically lacking context and similarly feed an overly and overtly negative and not in any way objective article. RevDougDickson 06:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Only have read the introductory section I could tell that the author feels that the movement is all negative. Articles in Wikipedia should not bias a reader. Cauliflower 06:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should do justice to the diversity of the emerging church by providing the views of slightly more conservative voices such as Rob Bell, Donald Miller, and Eugene Peterson. Not all emergents are Brian McLaren! Most of us, I dare say, actually disagree with him on many points. Many are Evangelical and--surprise--are not hostile to conservatives. I would be happy to help form an unbiased sketch of emergent thought. I'm hoping that every side will be fairly represented in this project. Bookwormonmax 10:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The main issue that persists in the editing of this article is whether it is OK to point out the controversial elements of EC. Apparently pro-EC editors believe this information should be censored. I believe all of the facts should be told in an unbiased way. Wikipedia does not exist to promote movements such as EC or to provide one-sided propoganda to popularize it with Evangelicals. I suggest all editors simply allow the facts to be told whether they believe it will serve their agenda or not. That is the purpose of an encyclopedia. If any editors wish to act as chameleons and propogandists there are an abundance of EC websites on which they can do so. Wikipedia is an objective encyclopedia which should relate a modern concept of truth which corresponds to reality, not truth as an emergent wishes to portray it to the unsuspecting and ignorant. In other words, let us just tell the actual truth and cut out the misleading jargon. It is disingenous to act as though the use of an encyclopedia to tell the whole truth (even that which does not help sell the movement) is somehow wrong. The postmodern idea of "wrong" as that which displeases me or hinders my agenda has no place at all in an encyclopedia. There are countless blogs to indulge the emergent agenda. This is the place to tell the facts. I am amazed that people are questioning the neutrality of the criticisms section. These criticisms are really being made. It is a violation of NPOV to suggest we censor the fact that these criticisms are made since it appears to embarrass some emergents who would like to cover up the fact that critics have said these things. Wikipedia criteria for the tag which has been placed has not been met. I am also most dissappointed that the writings of people such as D. A Carson (which are referenced much more often than Mohler's articles -- you should know that Gold Dragon) have been censored from the article's resource list. Could it be that some EC proponents believe that Carson and others are too articulate and thus too embarrassing to the movement? If this is not so why should they be censored?Will3935 (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Carson link is a good one that was not on the list I pruned. If it was, I would have likely kept it. I think you have a tendency to read a little too much into people's motives. Gold Dragon (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You may be right about my tendencies but only when it comes to EC. It is largely due to a lot of experience with emergents who try to appear to be one thing to outsiders while they speak differently to one another. The chameleon-like duplicity I have personally observed among many emergents has made me cynical regarding their motives even though I have no such tendencies when relating to those outside of the emerging church movement. You may have noticed that I have a shorter article online that addresses the bottom line more succinctly than my longer article. I also have a book published that addresses many issues such as EC right now and have another coming out (to be published by Gospel Publishing House) which speaks to the evangelization of postmoderns with no reference to EC. I think you know I have studied this movement quite intensely Gold Dragon and if I may offer a suggestion to you it seems that you are too close to the movement (as you claim to be part of it) to see it objectively and accurately. I have always contended that this article should be a legitimate encyclopedia article that says things the way they are in terms which use language in the commonly understood way rather than the fluid postmodern way which has no reason for being in a "modern" tool such as Wikipedia. When I catch people in blatant misrepresentations of their movement it does seem to me that they are doing so to avoid negative PR at the expense of "real truth." Consequently, I accept your personal criticism although I deny that I read too much into people in general's motives -- only emergents with whom I have had much experience with. I have also had a good deal of experience interacting with "angry atheists" and I would never question their motives because I have found them to be always very open and honest even if they are quite hostile. Perhaps emergents could learn something from atheist ethics...but then that might affect their popularity in church circles. BTW I hope medical school is going well for you.Will3935 (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I, too, am concerned with the overly negative and clearly biased tone of this article. I'll be more specific. I take issue with the fact that most of the attributes of Emerging Church are written in a critical tone with arguments against them included in the description. And then the entire article is concluded with an extensive list of every possible thing someone could think of to say against them. Either the arguments against need to be removed from the first part or counterarguments need to be added to that latter part. But here, we have the neigh-sayers having it both ways.

---I especially have an issue with this statement:

---

Intolerance toward evangelical Christians

Some evangelical Christians are concerned about the intolerant language—articulated by some emergent blogs—against conservatives and conservative theology within the evangelical community. Critics claim emergent bloggers spend much of their time ridiculing evangelical Christians and that evangelical efforts to engage in dialog on these blogs brings out hostility.[17]

--- So some guy writes an article online in some biased website about how mean they feel the EC bloggers are and that makes them an authority on the subject? This is purely subjective. And I would counter that in my years of experience in blog-world, it is the fundamentalists who are the most cruel. It's the "conversation" that dares to challenge what a fundamentalist thinks of as hardened proven truth that makes them feel they can challenge another person with such venom. An ECer, by definition is only wanting to open a discussion and doesn't claim to have a corner on the market of ancient truths. So who is attacking whom here? --I propose that for starters, this section be removed. It is very offensive and utterly untrue. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sure you have not been treated unkindly on emergent blogs, but I am not lying when I say that I and other Evangelicals have been. Other Evangelicals have complained of this. It may be untrue for you personally and it may be untrue for Wiccans and Hindus, but Evangelicals are treated intolerantly. Read the blogs. Wikipedia should not reflect the image the people described in an article WISH to project. Wikipedia must seek to reflect "real truth" as it exists in the experience of real people.Will3935 (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, Will, WOW, out of order edits to the Talk page... sneaky. I can say definitively, I have rarely seen evangelicals treated as badly on Emergent blogs as I have seen (with viciousness) how the emergents are treated on the evangelical pages. I have wondered how one can be so hateful and still claim to love my God. That is rarely true of emergents who want only the right to question theological dogma. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this paragraph should be removed, particularly because the "source" is an article written by one of the most active editors of this page, Will3935. Gold Dragon (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It would seem then, to avoid a double standard, most of the Values and Characteristics section should be deleted since the authors give NO source for their content.Will3935 (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that explains A LOT. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That was very sneaky of you, and it kind of proves my point, Will, that you would edit the talk page out of order so that is looks like I was responding to you, and not to Gold Dragon... hmm.DEZnCHRIS (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've switched out the crazy out-of-context quote from Len Sweet with a more appropriate one from the exact same source document. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the quote you censored. Although the quote sounds crazy it is no more crazy than the books content as a whole. It is completely in context with the entirety of Sweet's e-book (which I have read several times). I could offer many other Sweet quotes that reveal his tendencies toward monism but that would be overkill. I hope all editors can remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such it is a "modern" tool designed to accurately inform readers about various things such as EC. It is not an emergent blog designed to enhance the movements image with conservative Christians at the expense of clarity and accuracy. As for ridicule of and intolerance toward Evangelicals, I have experience nothing but this from emergents. I have yet to experience an emergent who will speak with me in clear, unambiguous terms; maintaining a kind demeanor (with the blessed exception of Gold Dragon [seriously - I wish all emergents would follow his example]). In fact, one emergent on Wikipedia tried to force me to divulge personal information. His tone was so wildly belligerent I feared for my safety. Another editor commented that he had known the emergent personally for years and warned me that my fears were legitimate. I will let your deletion of this content stand, but you have deleted truth in order to enhance your own image. Is it possible that you are not objective about your own movement? Of course, "objectivity" is a "modern" concept isn't it? Let's keep self-promoting agendas out of this encyclopedic work. BTW, over the years several emergent authors have contributed to this article in some way and some of these have cited their own works. This is not prohibited by Wikipedia policy if the editor is an authority on the subject and the sole criteria for their inclusion or exclusion should be accuracy. If the content is true it should stand. Gold Dragon, you have always said I am not an authority on this topic. Since I have written several articles and two books on the matter and since I have extensive theological and ministerial training / experience I wonder if you would apply the same standard to emergents? In your mind is there anyone other than Millard Erickson and D. A. Carson who would qualify as being an authoritative critic? Why do you find no fault in the numerous unsourced emergent comments in this article? The article of mine that you dismiss has been very widely read (a great many hits) and is linked to and quoted in a large number of websites. I do not seek to promote myself and the Wikipedia handbook clearly allows for a published author to cite his own work if they have extensively studied and written on the subject. Nevertheless I WILL NOT allow anyone to cite ANY of my works in the future so as to prevent the appearance that "justified" your censorship. It fascinates me how emergents are not willing to take their Evangelical critics seriously and enter into dialog with them. They only seem willing to dialog kindly with critics of Evangelical Christianity. Will3935 (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Will, I did NOT censor anything. I replaced a quote that is out of context with one that is more appropriate to the article. In the quote you want to include, he is talking about quantum physics and he's making an argument about changing science and how that relates to religion. Your quote does not even define what is meant by New Lights, and thus it makes it look like he's talking about some crazy new cult. Or maybe that was your intention?

Maybe you should consider including it in the article on quantum physics but it does not belong here. However, in that same referenced document, he includes a lot of information about his views of the emerging church. So including a quote about the emerging church is FAR more appropriate. You wrote, this quote should not be changed "at the expense of accuracy and clarity"! This is foolish. The quote you want is not accurate to the topic of the emerging church and is not clear because it is out of context.

You are doing what you are claiming I am doing. Reread your entire last post on here and apply it to yourself. I am sure that your web site gets a lot of hits. That is because there is no shortage of hardliner evangelical Christians who won't be bothered trying to understand what the emerging conversation is about and will just read what you've erroneously deamed them to be saying. How can you be expected to be NPOV about a topic that you refuse to try to understand. Will, God can take it. He's a big guy. And if you really wanted to understand what emergents are talking about or at the least, why they are looking for more than what they see in the traditional evangelical interpretation of the Bible, God can take it.

I love God and I read the Bible regularly. I pray first for the Holy Spirit to guide me and truly believe my blinders have fallen off once I let God guide me rather than men. I do evangelical work in sub-Saharan countries. I support work in Egypt and in Mongolia. I love my fellow Christians, even those I disagree with. And I will admit to being part of the emerging church. I will gladly discuss, in conversation, in dialogs anything you wish to discuss. But you are accusing me of being unkind when you are coming on here making wild accusations about my motives and my character. You claim that "emergents are not willing to take their Evangelical critics seriously and enter into dialog with them" but you aren't trying to do that. You are changing the article according to your own very biased agenda and then coming on here with insults flying. And then you want to talk? Okay, lets talk. But first, be NICE! Come-on, I know you can you do it. I have faith in you. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, Will. My friend. Let's be friends. So, you say that this article was modified by many "emerging" editors over the years... But I can't say that I entirely agree. As I have come to believe more and more by scrolling through the history of this page that nearly every sentence has been modified by you in the recent past and clearly comes from a biased tone outside of the "emerging church". Whether it's an argument for or against the emerging church, it seems to be coming from your bias. And when Wikipedia says they encourage "writing for the enemy", I don't think they mean that you are supposed to be the only view point of view included.

As an example, I was trying to figure out what was being said in the section "Postmodern hermeneutics". Because even the parts of the article that I might otherwise agree with, I can hardly understand. So I googled "referential theory of language " to more clearly understand it... and what do you think I got! Your web page, of course! You're a funny guy. Can we agree that some of this needs to be... "deconstructed". Using jargon on a wikipedia article, not to mention one about the emerging church (the irony!), is not encouraged. I look forward to your thoughts. Let's talk about it. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't have a website or webpage. Second, I delight in being nice. Nevertheless, I have worked on this article for years. I have hammered out compromises with many emergent editors and I do not think any single editor should come along and make sweeping changes without discussing these one at a time. Let's be reasonable. Also, it seems you do not understand the intent of Sweet's e-book. It is about quantum spirituality not quantum physics. It seems to me that I have studied this movement's writing's more than you have. I understand your zeal to enhance the PR of a movement you are involved in but this format is not one designed to either defame or promote anything. This is a factual encyclopedia. If you wish to promote or in any way misrepresent EC there are many blogs which will accomodate you. You accuse me of many things ignorantly. I will overlook the insult since you have not been with us over the years. Even Gold Dragon took a long leave of absence to devote his energies to medical school. I have been here over the long haul and can testify of working with many emergent editors over time. We have reasonably discussed each issue one at a time. None have wished to do as you have and make sweeping, inaccurate changes that you refuse to compromise on. I want us to have a friendly dialog on each issue you want to discuss. I have compromised many times when editors have been reasonable. Gold Dragon and I compromised on some content 2 or 3 years ago. I welcome you to the process but I must insist it is a process. One editor such as yourself can not take over and disregard the history of input from so many hands that have worked together as brothers. If you have issues to discuss related to the content of the article (not related to personal insults)let's begin with the one that you wish to start with. BTW, your ignorance of the referential theory of language indicates that you are young and relatively uneducated. I suggest you discuss this issue with a philosophy professor at a local university if you live close to one. All scholars are familiar with the referential theory of language and how it relates to postmodernism in general and postmodern theology in particular. If you wish to have input into an encyclopedia you will need to do some homework. Mocking commonly known concepts such as the referential theory only discredits your scholarly abilities. Also, out of order edits on the talk page is has been common on this and other articles. Gold Dragon uses it at times. You misjudge my motives. I was not trying to be sneaky but only to respond to statements immediately after their posting. Such personal accusations are not what Wikipeidia is about. They are only inflammatory and I wish for us to have amicable dialog. I do suggest you read the Wikipedia handbook to understand how things are done within this encyclopedia. God Bless. I will be here to work with you.Will3935 (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so married to this silly Len Sweet quote? I've met the man. He can be kooky. Is that your point? The man is kooky so therefore the whole EC is kooky? But this quote is ridiculous and does not belong here. It has nothing to do with EC out of context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DEZnCHRIS (talk • contribs) 22:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, Why do you keep reverting Stanley to Stan? His professional name was Stanley Grenz. I own his books, they clearly say Stanley Grenz on them. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not create the original "Stan" reference. I once changed it to "Stanley" and have changed it again. Thanks for calling my attention to it. I also own his books and had the opportunity to meet him before his passing. He was a very pleasant man. Len Sweet is a central figure to EC and his positions are accepted by emergents. Generous orthodoxy has allowed for views such as his to become a part of the EC mainstream. Thus, the quote is very pertinent to the article which explains the ecclectic nature of EC. We have had the quote on this page for a very long time and you are the first emergent to object to its inclusion. I think the quote is informative in that it contributes to a readers understanding of Generous orthodoxy as it is practiced in the movement. Sweet is not the only emergent with "kooky" statements (I have a big collection of them) but the purpose of the article is not to try to offer such quotes in disproportionate amount to their presence in the movement itself. Certainly, we can also find many innocent sounding quotes from Sweet and others that do not relate to the DISTINCTIVES of EC. The reason for including this quote is that it does indeed relate to the distinctives of EC, those things that make it different from Evangelicalism. In this respect it is a valuable contribution to an encyclopedia article which seeks to inform others about the nature of EC. I think your addition of another quote of Sweet's helps to balance this quote. Perhaps we should be married to this compromise.Will3935 (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So you agree then that you are only guarding this quote because it " explains the ecclectic nature of the EC." This quote is not a distinctive of the EC. It explains nothing about the EC. If the quote is to remain than it needs to be explained. It's a simple as that. If you don't like it, then I'll ask for other opinions... Does this quote explain anything about Emerging Church? And should it then be included in an encyclopedic article about the Emerging Church? DEZnCHRIS (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The quote does not explain anything about EC. I thank you for pointing that out to me and I should not have used that word. It illustrates a central tenent of EC. Quotes generally illustrate rather than explain. I think it would give undue weight to this quote to explain it. It does indeed reflect Sweet's monist tendencies and I think it would make EC look more unorthodox than it is to take time to explain the quote fully. Again, I think we should settle on the current compromise. If one wishes to work together with other Wikipedia editors that is what one must learn to do. No one will be completely happy with the results. That is the nature of compromise.Will3935 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the notation that EC is controversial used to be referenced to one of Dan Kimball's works. Kimball is a proponent of EC but acknowledges the fact that it is very controversial. Someone deleted the reference to Kimball along the way. "Controversial" does not necessarily mean wrong. Christianity was controversial in its inception as was democracy.Will3935 (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so since you've brought it up, with the Len Sweet quote you want the quote to speak for itself and not be explained. And yet you want to state as a very first adjective of the very first noun of the article that -what you are about to read is something that is controversial- which is again, plainly obvious from the article itself. Should we not follow what Wikipedia NPOV guidlines say: Let the facts speak for themselves

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

   You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

Remember that readers will probably not take kindly to moralizing. If you do not allow the facts to speak for themselves you may alienate readers and turn them against your position. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Dez, the point is to avoid the appearance of arguing for a position. That is not appropriate in this format. The fact is that EC is controversial. If that is offensive to you we may consider deleting the term, although I don't see the point in doing so since it is a fact. It only seems to diminish the quality of the article, but I don't think it is a big deal. If you wish to delete the word go ahead. It seems to be very important to you for some reason. I still don't think we should take up time to explain Sweet's monism. It will only call too much attention to it. The quote's purpose is not to indicate that all emergents are monists, it illustrates that EC is ecclectic and generous in its orthodoxy. This is well established in the literature of the movement.Will3935 (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted "controversial." No big deal.Will3935 (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Dez, "Semantic externalism" is essentially synonomous with the referential theory of language. Wikipedia has an article by this title. Millard Erickson's Reclaiming the Center has some material on the referential theory of language also.Will3935 (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Tricky Apron for some good edits. I hope you will continue to help us on this article.Will3935 (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, Will. I assessed the article for WikiProject Christianity as well, and I hope I wasn't too harsh, but I found the article a bit lacking. What is the emerging church? Is it just a plastic word? I noticed mention of people I do know a bit of - Newbigin, Borg, Wright, Grenz - but it's unclear what their relationship is to this movement. Borg and Wright, for example, are very different: no one, and presumably not this movement, can agree with everything both of them say. Can they? TrickyApron (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Your criticisms are valid. I would favor eliminating the Borg references (which another editor included). He considers himself an emergent but I think most emergents would consider him an embarassment. We once had lists of proponents and critics which got out of hand and had to be made into separate articles which were subsequently deleted. I don't think you were too harsh. Part of the reason the article has not expanded beyond its status as a stub (some have complained it is too long!) is that editors from different perspectives have weighed in on the article and even small edits have been heavily debated (such as the use of the word "controversial"). A great deal of energy has been expended just to come up with this brief compromised version. I doubt if the article will progress much more than it has since each edit undergoes such scrutiny and argumentation. One comment in response to your question is that the emerging church movement is not monolithic. It's participants do not hold to any one doctrinal or moral view. They differ on such things as an afterlife, atonement, homosexuality etc. The glue that holds the movement together is postmodern epistemology which leads to a relativistic "generous orthodoxy" that embraces all of these divergent views in one movement. The only view not tolerated is Evangelical absolutism. Hope this helps.Will3935 (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Will, to be fair. You've hawked this article as your own and no one can get a cohesive thought in about what the emerging church even is. I've scrolled the history. There is your biased wording in both the values and characteristics and in the critiques. Thus a valid point isn't able to be made about the movement before you've hijacked it. I don't think I have the endurance to fight you on this. Your constant jabs and insulting innuendos are exhausting. No wonder you say no one wants to dialog with you. It's all yours! You can have it. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, this is the response some (not all) emergents give me when I ask them to discuss the movement specifically and factually, and to keep the article neutral. You are obviously angry and you resort to the kind of personal attacks that violate Wikipedia policy (NPA). Wikipedia is not a good place for those who cannot dialog without losing their temper and resorting to personal attacks. I am sorry you have decided to leave us. At least we still have Gold Dragon and some others to represent the emergent view. I honestly wish you well Dez.Will3935 (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So, you agree then that you are determined to insult me yet again. And that you have similarly chased away every other person who would disagree with your biased portrayal of this. At some point, it would be wise to concede that you are the problem. Take it up with the Maker. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

God Bless you Dez. I love you in Christ. Good to see you have decided to rejoin us. Have you got any photos we can use?Will3935 (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

We Still Need Photos

I think it is sad that we have been working on this article so long and still do not have a single photo. A photo of an emergent group meeting etc. would really add to the article. This would also be something (if the right photo is chosen I suppose) that would not be debated or contested. I think if we are going to progress past the stub stage we do need to have at least one appropriate photo in the article if anyone is ambitious enough to put one/some in.Will3935 (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Who's "we"? You and that squirrel in your pocket? I have several great pictures that I could add of our Bible study that meets in a pub. But no way-no how would I add it to this article the way it is currently written. (Here are the big bad dangerous controversial emergents) I might get lynched in the street if I'm recognized. Yours truly, In Christ, DEZnCHRIS (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no. Bless you.Will3935 (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent NPOV changes, Will. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for acknowledging the squirrel in my pocket. Most people act like he isn't even there (which makes him feel slighted) and some people try to tell me he doesn't even exist!Will3935 (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed, can be removed

I propose that the citation needed be removed from this statement: "Postmodern academics such as John Franke, Scot McKnight, F. LeRon Shults and the late Stanley Grenz have been supporters[citation needed] of the movement." Proof is as follows. There could be 4 little citation references after the sentence, but that seems unsightly, and the fact these guys are a part of the conversation is hardly disputable.

Here we have both Scot McKnight and John Franke speaking, with others at a conference titled Westminster's Emerging Church Forum (with notes included by participants on the lectures that further demonstrate their status as EC speakers, (http://setsnservice.wordpress.com/2006/10/29/westminsters-emerging-church-forum-students-and-guests-notes/) This is the introduction by Scot McKnight: "I am particularly honored to be invited to speak at Westminster, not only because someone of my ilk – and I’ll let you exegete “my ilk” as you wish – rarely gets such an invitation, but because I’ve been invited to answer the question “What is the emerging church?” ......

Furthermore, about D A CARSON and tying in other ECers, he wrote: "I have probed and prodded emerging church leaders and ordinaries for about two years now, and I have almost never heard anything that resembles what Carson thinks is so typical of the emerging “church.” Let me say it again: I have sat for hours with Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt, along with two theologians who are much-admired in this conversation, LeRon Shults and John Franke, and I’ve never once heard any of them deny the truthfulness of the gospel or deny that there is truth in a hard postmodernist way. I have heard them push categories that many of us are familiar with about “truth.” In each case I’ve heard what I would call a chastened epistemology, what Lesslie Newbigin calls a “proper confidence.”"

LeRon Shults says of himself: "The coordinators of Emergent have often been asked (usually by their critics) to proffer a doctrinal statement that lays out clearly what they believe. I am merely a participant in the conversation who delights in the ongoing reformation that occurs as we bring the Gospel into engagement with culture in ever new ways. But I have been asked to respond to this ongoing demand for clarity and closure. I believe there are several reasons why Emergent should not have a “statement of faith” to which its members are asked (or required) to subscribe. Such a move would be unnecessary, inappropriate and disastrous." (http://www.emergentvillage.com/weblog/blast-from-the-past-i)

This states that Stanley Grenz was a favorite theologian of the Emerging Church. He wrote many books, including "Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context" which is a key EC text (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/marchweb-only/12.0b.html)

I'm removing the tag but welcome any discussion on the subject. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Although, I guess to prevent another person coming along and tagging it again, I'll just put a reference on each person. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Added Content

I added some content to the Missional Living section with sourced material. Look it over and let me know what you think. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I also added content in the lead. I hope you'll appreciate that I found a knowledgeable source that included pros and cons to the EC. I want to work together at filling in this article. It needs some updating and adding in order to get it up to speed. But I'll not edit anything more for a few days unless you show up, Will. I don't want to do this without you. I know you've been a part of this article for a long time and I don't want to appear to be hijacking it. DEZnCHRIS (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I find your edits to be quite good. I think they add quality to the article.I think Tricky Apron added most of the "citation needed" tags although I did add some too. I usually find these tags annoying unless the statement they follow is one I doubt is accurate. One need not spend time citing the obvious in my opinion. The pro-EC scholars cited in the article are well known for their positions. I once tried to add a more extensive paragraph tracing the theological roots of EC but the EC editors at the time seemed ignorant of these theologians and thought the paragraph did not relate adequately to the movement as it is now. They deleted it as unnecessary and I was not willing to die fighting on that hill.

I find McKnight's comments flabbergasting. I had respected Scot and this quote lowers him a couple of notches in my estimation. I have probed very deeply into EC and found Carson's analysis to be repeatedly spot on! If anything it seems to me that Carson errs on the side of caution in his analysis of EC. I suspect that many EC'ers put on a relatively conservative face around Scot since he tends to be theologically conservative. I believe the fluidity of the "conversation" sometimes lends a chameleon like quality to the emerging church movement (I have collected quotes that can back that up). I find the comments by EC'ers like McKnight and Jones who attack Carson's work ("breathtakingly bad") to be inaccurate. I say this after doing many, many hours of research on the subject, including reading many EC books, visiting many EC blogs, and speaking to many emergents. My oldest daughter was on staff at an EC church until she became disillusioned with it for a number of reasons. She is the one who first called my attention to the gravity of some of the issues involved. Scot is a total enigma to me. I do not understand why he and others pick on Carson so much when many other Evangelicals such as Millard Erickson, R. Scott Smith, J. P. Moreland, Charles Colson (OK, they do pick on him too), Gene Veith, the late Carl Henry, Douglas Groothius, David Wells, Josh McDowell, Michael Horton, Albert Mohler, and many others have said the same things Carson has and then some. I do believe there are some unfair criticisms of EC coming out of the extreme "discernmentalist" camp by people such as Ken Silva, Ray Yungen, and Roger Oakland. I intend to write an article at some point exposing some of the fallacies in their criticisms of EC (I have way too many irons in the fire to do this at the moment). These authors tend to make other critics of EC look bad. End of the rant and back to the article though -- I think your edits have improved it.Will3935 (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-McKnight's assessment of Carson's work on the EC. I have to say that I agree with McKnight's analysis of Carson's work, which seemed to be more a critique of McLaren than the ECM, and did more to blur the Emergent/Emerging distinction than to provide clarity. The problem I see with this article - of which Carson's fatal flaw was only a microcosm - is that it treats the ECM as an entity, rather than a cultural shift, in which "emerging" churches have come out of multiple denominational (and non-denominational) backgrounds. As such, these churches have tended to retain some of the same strengths and weaknesses of their parent churches. So, the more liberal/mainline-spawned ECM churches continued down the road with weakly-defined orthodoxy, while those which came from conservative roots still retain more well-defined orthodoxies (though often expressed in narrative form, rather than didactic form). Carson (and others) have tried to toss these all together and treat them as a single entity, defined by the "lowest" common denominator.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The problem I find with most critics of EC, and Carson too, is that it's all only true sometimes because of the extremely decentralized nature of the movement. Critics are prone to blanket statements of absolutes. Which is why I, and many prominent thinkers would agree, much prefer calling the ECM a conversation. You are free to disagree with people that you are in respectful conversation with. And I think this accurately reflects the reality. The whole EC movement is not about defining a theology- it's about empowering people to find Jesus for themselves outside of the (well-intentioned) parameters various great evangelicals have outlined. The invitation is to explore faith within the community of a discussion among friends. Which is why it's not organized and it does cross denominational lines and looks and feels so different from church to church- and when the ideal works it's brilliant- but then people go and get in the way again. Affinity likely (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the "Conversation" section under "values and characteristics" should be filled in more to reflect this. I do have a life so I'm not up to it right away. I've been working on getting some things in the article sourced and finding more current information. A lot here was from 2005 which is an eternity to EC. Affinity likely (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys are missing the point. Neither Carson nor any other scholarly critic of EC lumps all emergents together in one box. In fact, Carson goes out of his way to point out diversity in the movement as do other critics such as Millard Erickson. This Wikipedia article also does this to some extent. The key issue is the postmodern epistemology embraced by EC. Gospel Publishing House will soon publish a book by me on postmodernism vs. biblical faith (which does not address EC at any length). The article at http://www.apologeticsindex.org/612-emergent-epistemology addresses the issue of emergent epistemology. This epistemology is common to the otherwise diverse movement. The issue is epistemology and I have yet to find an EC'er who will engage in dialog on this bottom line issue. Instead, they prefer to say that there is diversity in the movement and then falsely accuse critics of not acknowledging this. They then assert that the diversity in the movement invalidates the criticisms which, for the most part, they have never read. I have yet to dialog with an EC editor working on this article who has actually read Carson, Erickson, or Smith's books which very intelligently critique EC. Others have told them "what the books say" and that the books are not good. The EC'ers I have spoken to have let these others do their thinking for them. I read more books critical of my positions than I do books which support them. I believe intellectual integrity demands this and I have not personally dialoged with an EC'er who exhibits this integrity although I have spoken to MANY of them. There is no reason to be afraid of open interchange of ideas and actually questioning what EC leaders have told you to believe! Please do not stop asking questions of what you are told and believe once you have identified with this movement. Will3935 (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, When my first article on EC was posted online I found that it was ridiculed on several emergent blogs. I concede that there were flaws in the article and I did revise it a little later on. I visited the blogs which attacked my article to discuss their complaints in more detail. I was shocked to find that although their was a whole thread of ridicule of me and my article on each of these blogs only the blogger who started the thread had read any of my article at all and none of these had read past the first three paragraphs (the article was fifty pages single spaced in length). This behavior by EC bloggers is frightening to me. Those same bloggers had read long works by Buddhists and Wiccans but would not read my critique of their own movement before lampooning the article and insulting me. They simply passed on what others who had only read a small excerpt told them to believe about what I had written and they then felt qualified to make fun of me. This made a poor impression on me. I could multiply examples of similar behavior I have encountered on emergent blogs but this discussion page is not designed for that purpose.Will3935 (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Will, I can think of a number of "emerging" folks (including one you mentioned, Dan Kimball) who would give a 'hogwash' to your epistimology argument. Having read Carson's book, he only gives passing reference to the diversity of the movement, but then turns around and duplicates the error in your article by stating multiple times that "emergents believe...", including an attempt to invoke 2 Tim 4:3 (and other prooftexted scriptures) to paint a false dichotomy. I've removed your link, as it does not meet WP:V standards (self-published, etc.) While I think there are some serious issues within the ECM, I would suggest that every movement within the church has issues of similar criticality (such as the effective elevation of systematic theologies to the level of scripture within the Reformed tradition, to give one example). I agree that McLaren, Jones and Sweet have issues with their epistimology, but last time I checked, they weren't "Cardinals" of the ECM...--Lyonscc (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The article referenced is not self published. The author does not run or have anything to do with the site. Also, an editor can link his or her own article under certain conditions which are clearly met in this case. If you have a problem with this link we should have it mediated by an admin because I am certain that it violates no policy. Certainly, many people would give a "hogwash" to my articles. This does not mean these people are right just because they can say "hogwash"! You seem to assume that whatever an emergent says trumps all evidence to the contrary. I insist that the facts speak for themselves for those who investigate them objectively. When one is part of a movement being critiqued it is hard to be objective. I have no agenda other than the facts. I have no problem with EC practices but these practices alone do not define a movement. You should read the article you deleted. EC is as divergent as Neo-Orthodoxy but it also has certain defining characteristics. The chief characteristic of EC is postmodernism and the chief characteristic of postmodernism is its epistemology. In spite of the diversity within EC it remains that "they believe" certain common elements. Otherwise there would be no movement to talk about. There is nothing new or unique about emergent practices. I suspect I am older than you and have seen all these things first hand. Name almost any emergent practice and I can tell you about my experience with it over the years but I am not an emergent! Whoever wishes to say "hogwash" to the facts is of no concern to me. The truth stands independent of anyone's opinion of it. By all means let's appeal to admin arbitration if you still think the link violates policy.Will3935 (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I did read the linked article, which was why I accurately described it as 'hogwash' (being kind). Aside from the absence of excess hyperbole, it could have been written by Ken Silva. Also, despite your appeal to your age, I'm guessing you're not all that much older than I am (40), and I would stress that I'm NOT a member of the ECM, but I know enough living, breathing Christians who are (including some leaders you've listed and some you've not) to say that the criticisms of "Neo-Orthodoxy" and faulty epistimology as "emergent" are as true as "postmoderns believe there is no truth". It sounds good on paper, but contains about as much truth as the National Enquirer. I find it interesting, though, that much of the article about the ECM seems to be penned by its critics, rather than defined by its actual members, many - but not all - of whom, look nothing like what is portrayed in the article. Go ahead and appeal to arbitration, but your self-published article will continue to be removed as the non-WP:NPOV, uncharitable hackery it is until otherwise ruled.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if you have not read Grenz and Franke's book please do. They clearly establish that their effort is to establish a postfoundational theology (based on postmodern epistemology). Emergents acknowledge this work as seminal. Your protests seem uninformed.Will3935 (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I manage a group blog with 1 ECM writer, along with a number of other Christians of differing backgrounds. I'm not uninformed, but rather have decided to take the part of a charitable listener than a discernmentalist looking to find what's wrong with everyone else. Even in your response "Emergents acknowledge..." is like saying "Americans are all...". In reality, most folks in the ECM have never read McLaren, nor would fit into any "prototypical" mold. As noted above, they tend to be more like the church denomination/movements from which they came (since they are a response to a shift in culture, not the shift, itself). Your writing is completely myopic and borderline slanderous.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

This article seems to be written by the critics of the ECM, and much of what is present seems to be a charicature of what the ECM actually is. Additionally, it seems like almost all "External Links" are to sites critical of the movement. In reality, it seems like one big WP:COAT article for the purpose of WP:NOR--Lyonscc (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I differ with your self-evaluation and your evaluation of the article. Is it OK for me to have an opinion that differs from yours? It seems inconsistent with humility to refuse correction and call it slander. BTW, "All Americans" are certain things or there would be no such category. You seem to argue that EC has no defining characterstics other than old practices that predate the movement. You are quite uninformed about Wikipedia policy. The article you keep censoring is not self published and is not found on a blog. You probably mean to say it violates Wikipedia policy against self-promotion which it does not. Policy alllows for one to post their own article under the right circumstances. I am not sure what scares you so much about the content of this article. Wikipedia does have a procedure for arbitration by an admin in the case of edit wars such as this. If you want the link removed please go through the proper procedure to do so and please stop repeating the falsehoods that the article is self published and found on a blog. This is a serious blow to your credibility when the admin will investigate. Also, please remain open to critiques. Humility demands this. Getting emotional and calling people names like myopic does not address specifics in any way. It is a personal attack which does indeed violate Wikipedia policy. Admins will notice this when called in to mediate. Let's stick to specific comments about content and not resort to ad hominems which only show that we have no logic or evidence to validate our views. Many editors (mostly emergents) have labored over this article over a period of years. It does not seem humble for you to insist that you know better than all of us and will not listen to what we have carefully haggled and compromised over during the course of the years.Will3935 (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

From WP:V

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

The link you keep adding does not appear to be from a peer-reviewed journal, and it is broadly generalizing, relying on prooftexting. Reading through the discussion pages, it appears that quite a few folks have problems with the coatracking and slanting of the article, itself, and it does no disservice to previous editors to categorize it as in violation of NPOV. If you want to include your article, by all means put it here on the discussion page for discussion before attempting to attach it to the main article. There are some "general" characteristics of the ECM, but even they have enough exceptions to the rule that they bog down in weasel-words or (as in the case of the article you're trying to link, which is, at best, a coatrack and at worst libel of a good number of Christians in the ECM who do NOT look anything like what you've (self)published. The article in question broadly generalizes epistimology of the entire ECM, and can be contradicted through numerous sources - including Dan Kimball, Mark Driscoll and others. It is a disservice to the conversation to attempt to coatrack it in.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and the admins may well agree with you. I may be wrong in trying to add the article. It is my best judgment that it belongs but I may be wrong with regard to policy etc. This is why we should let the admins decide. I think it would stop us from calling names etc. which seems to me to violate the concept of dialog and compromise. I am not out to hurt you or EC. I just want the facts to be uncensored. We obviously disagree but perhaps we can do so without being disagreeable. I am quite willing to admit that I may be in the wrong about this issue. Please forgive me if I have been. I will ask for admin help. Friends?Will3935 (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

After thinking the issue through at more length I think you are right about the peer review issue. I have deleted the link. Apologetics Index is a respected source but it has articles of varying quality. It is run by Anton Hein who sees the site as something of a library and includes some articles of lower quality. He thinks very highly of my writings but that does not count for true peer review. Sorry for the edit war. You win this one (I still don't think the article is "rubbish" though -- of course I am admittedly biased).Will3935 (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct - "rubbish" was too strong, a vestige of too many bloguments... My apologies for the dramatics.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Still Disputed?

Do we still need this tag at the top of the article? It does detract from the degree to which readers will see the article as authoritative. Thus, it would be good to delete it unless some editors think it still belongs there. If no one objects within thirty days I will delete it. Of course anyone can restore it at any time if they feel inclined to.Will3935 (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

O Will. This article is still VERY biased. Especially your recent additions to the Postmodern worldview. Honestly I wish you'd just poke about the critics section and stop trying to write about what the movement is. The problem is that you are writing about it from an outside understanding that already views EC with a sideways glare. So a bias is inherent in everything you think about the EC! It's SO disheartening. You are not being as objective as I know you think you are. I'm sorry. Affinitylikely •Hello• 04:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole EC dialogue is grass roots. It's more of a revolution of people who have noticed that Jesus showed up where the church had decided He wasn't supposed to be. Where did you even get your info about Existentialism? I agree I've heard discussions about it because EC looks at all kinds of philosophies. It's as if they are turning every rock to look for what bit of grace got left there unnoticed. But to say definitively that EC TRACES ITS ROOTS TO EXISTENTIALISM, are you kidding me? And then followed by the generalized conclusion that this causes the EC to believe that EACH PERSON HAS THEIR OWN TRUTH? And the Jaques Derrida BS presumption... I could go on. Will, this is not accurate and yet you write it out as if A led to B which caused them to believe C. It's NOT ACCURATE. It is an outsiders attempt at understanding what is going on from a biased view that the EC is wrong. It's a view taken from the starting point of BIAS. It is NOT the reality. So, yes, sadly, still VERY much disputed.Affinitylikely •Hello• 04:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And you'll notice that I don't think that it may be true to you but not to me. It IS simply untrue. Affinitylikely •Hello• 04:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the neutrality dispute should remain since most of the article is written from Will3935's perspective which he states is clearly one of opposition to the emergent church. Gold Dragon (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

First, Gold Dragon, while you were away I worked with several emergent editors on this article. It is not mine. Your comments insult the many editors who have worked on this article. I have also insisted that I do not object to EC practices. I only critique the epistemology of most of its prominent figures which leads to theology I differ with in some its leaders. If you would like to discuss a specific change feel free to do so. It seems clear to me that you guys do not understand what I was saying in my last edit. There is a reason that EC is called a movement. If all we say of it is that it is a group of people that have discovered Jesus and have diverse practices that is not a movement. That is simply a diverse group of CHRISTIANS. People keep asking what EC IS. I have looked very deeply into this. I have read many EC books. Spent many hours on EC blogs. I have talked to many emergents and discussed the matter with my daughter who was on staff at a prominent EC church. I was a member in good standing of an online EC community for years. I have written two article and two books pertaining to the subject. I feel that some of you guys are lay people without much theological training. I have three theological degrees and have earned a certain amount of respect in scholarly circles. EC IS a postmodern expression of faith and practice. Most of its prominent leaders are postfoundational. These are facts, objective truth. I was not trying to link EC directly to existentialism. I know that most EC'ers don't even understand existentialism. I was trying to identify some of the early influences of and figures in postmodernism since many readers do not understand pomo. To deny that EC has anything to do with pomo culture is ignorant. I find that many EC editors are unhappy unless the Wikipedia article takes on a chameleon like quality that will promote its popularity among average Christians who do not know much about it. An encyclopedia article should be both factual and neutral. The complaint I hear from emergents is that it "seems negative in tone." Positive or negative is not the issue in an encyclopedia. Facts and neutrality are. Go ahead and delete whatever you don't understand, are ignorant of, or don't "feel" good about. I have learned to expect that. But please stop calling me names and attacking my integrity. When you resort to the intellectually cheap ammunition of ad-hominems you only show that you are not educated enough to interact intelligently with the facts involved. That is fine. Not everyone can spend there lives studying philosophy, theology, and ministry. Not everyone has the time to invesitigate the roots and fruits of EC the way I have. My experience is that when people feel they can not respond intelligently to issues they get angry and call people names. We will dumb the article down to suit you if you are not willing to admit that you are ignorant of the roots and epistemological foundation of EC. This article will be nothing more than a stub when people feel like they are experts on this subject because they are involved in a blog and then can censor any intelligent input they "feel" bad about. Perhaps what your friends have told you about EC is not all there is to know about it. Your limited experience and what your leaders have told you to believe may be only part of the story. That is why Wikipedia is designed to allow for input from people of various viewpoints and not allow an article to just be a piece of promotional propaganda for a movement. God Bless you. I am glad you found Jesus wherever you found him. If finding Jesus is all there is to EC then count me in. The fact is that there is more to it than that and all the aspects of EC should be intellegently elaborated upon in an encyclopedia article. I realize that this will not happen, though, since emergent editors will delete anything they "feel" bad about whether they understand it or not. Oh well, such is Wikipedia. That is one reason it is not a respected, scholarly source. BTW, when you guys speak as though the only ones with a bias are those you differ with and that you have no bias of your own you show a lack of insight into yourselves. I realize that I have a bias but so do you guys. We should work together to produce a neutral article rather than resort to ignorant pontification and ad-hominems. That is SO dissappointing! I now agree that the neutrality disputed tag should remain since some of the emergent editors will not allow objective evaluations to stand if they do not seem to promote the PR of EC among young, uneducated, Evangelicals. I retract my suggestion to remove the tag. There is a great deal of EC bias in the article. BTW, do no emergent editors know anything about the early influence of Nancey Murphey and Fuller Seminary in the movement. I suppose if I tried to write about that it would be censored also since the emergent "experts" probably know nothing about it. That does not make it false. Please excuse my belligerent tone. I am not feeling well at all and I find your latest comments very disturbing.Will3935 (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Will, perhaps you should stick to the facts in the matter, rather than continuing to attempt to influence via the fallacy of appeal to authority. If this were all that mattered, Scot McKnight - a more published author on this particular topic with established bonafides in the ECM (even though he belongs to the Willow Creek Church community, and not an EC church) whose assessment is completely at odds with what you've theorized - should take precedence over your own assessments... In all matter of fact, his Five Streams of the Emerging Church paper should be sufficient in defining the ECM. Instead, what you continue to do is insert your own anti-ECM bias as if it were fact, when it clearly - to those familiar with the movement - not.

For instance, you write There is a reason that EC is called a movement. If all we say of it is that it is a group of people that have discovered Jesus and have diverse practices that is not a movement. That is simply a diverse group of CHRISTIANS., and in doing so you miss a clear distinction in this "movement" vs. other denominational movements in Christianity. With the ECM, the movement is defined simply by its desire to reach out to people in a postmodern world to lead them to Christ without trying to "convert" them to modernism as a requisite (pre- or post-). Therefore, it is not like other "movements", because those within it aren't following a denominational model, but rather an organic model that responds to a commonly experienced change in the external environment (from modernist to postmodernist dominance). In short - your edits are anything but truth, encyclopedic or neutral. Your writing shows all the classic signs of tendentious editing.--Lyonscc (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're not feeling well. But, Will, the postmodern roots of the movement stem from the generation that drives it. My generation was raised in a different reality than yours and understand and relate to others differently because of it. One only has to look at the cartoons that each generation watched. And I think my kids' generation will explode this idea even further, just based on what they are watching. The end all-be all of your religion is a personal relationship with Jesus- and mine says, that's great and important but let's take that and try to make the whole world a better place because of it. Let's further the Kingdom of God. Let's make the world a better place. Let's make the world identify following Christ with being a force for good in the world. Let's focus a little less on what I get out of it and more on what WE get out of it. It's just the way things have fallen into place. And that, by the way, even good people have issues and even bad people have good in them- making an EC'er look as if they are condoning bad. (kinda of how Jesus was accused of that) It DOES NOT mean that every postmodern ideology philosophers have come up with applies directly to EC as you seem to believe. You may be an expert on crawfish ettouffee but if you've never really tasted it than you're no better off for all your "learnin'" if you're trying to say it tastes like cream of lobster. And sometimes, as with this last post of yours, I get the distinct feeling that you are calling others unlearn-ed when you don't get your way. (Maybe, it's because you called us ignorant or uneducated 6 times) BTW, I've studied existentialism at length as part of one of my degrees. I know EXACTLY what you are trying to say when you add that to this article. If you think I deleted it because it made me feel "bad" then you have mightily underestimated me. Thank you very much. Now, let's try to focus on what should and should not be in the article and refrain from the insults. I understand that you believe you are an expert in the field and I have no doubt that you've studied it at length- but you still don't GET it. So, please, feel free to represent the nay-sayers and add opinions here to what others are adding but please, Will, stop trying to add more biased content totally and wholly lacking any consensus while trying to describe what EC is on an article that is already biased in your direction .Affinity likely •Hello• 01:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it disturbing to see another rash series of edits all in one gulp. There is no way EC will or should be classified as "psuedo Christianity" or that a skewed and spiteful statement such as "Proponents of this movement call the discussion of their beliefs a conversation in order to disarm opponents" should be anywhere in this article. A false statement like "The predominantly young participants in this movement prefer narrative presentations drawn from the biblical narratives over direct scriptural messages, thereby allowing more freedom for new interpretation and reinvention." serves only to a) try to discredit the movement by showing that it's only a faddish young-peoples thing and to b)falsely claim that the EC have no scriptural backing to their beliefs (which if this person believes that than someone is picking the wrong books to read) and c)presents as fact the assumption that Emergents are just after a nice little story-time before they go light some candles and sing U2 songs together. I've undone that last edit and if that IP person would like to discuss the issues one at a time, then that would work swimmingly. Affinity likely •Hello• 01:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Weasel-Words and Unsourced Claims

The WP:NPOV problems with this article, upon closer examination, spring from the "generous" use of weasel words and the lack of factual documentation. Additionally, with this being a high level, general overview of a diverse movement, many of the items documented are done so in such a narrow way as to be factual for a subset of the movement, while being misleading and completely non-factual for another significant subset of the movement. My suggestion would be to severely strip this article down to the bare bones, removing much of the overly generalized material (including the information inserted on epistimology in violation of WP:NOR), and leave it at that. I will likely start down that path in the coming week...--Lyonscc (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I've read and reread this article and was just seriously considering starting a whole different one in my sandbox because this one seems almost too off to fix. I've circled it so many times not sure where to start. Another problem I have with this article is the criticisms section but given the heavy POV presented I was a little grateful for it. Alternatively, I would much prefer to see, as Wikipedia states is preferable, having the "critiques" (much better word, as per WP) folded into the body of the article. Affinity likely •Hello• 02:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that in the coming week we find each case of overgeneralization and qualify it properly with a good, neutral source. This is better than taking information out of the article. It involves more work so we should be prepared to roll up our sleeves and get to work this week. Severely stripping a stub (the classification of our article) is not an improvement. Surely we can find each case of objectionable overgeneralization and find sources to qualify those with specificity. I pledge to help any way I can in improving the article but I dislike the idea of dismantling it and removing information instead of qualifying it properly. I am not sure if you meant to say that overgeneralizing is the same as using weasel words. It is not. If that was your intent I suggest you read up on weasel words and point out specific cases in which they are used in the article. This way we can work to replace those specific words with non-weasel words. I can help with this too. I was an English teacher for a short time and would like to think this is an area I can help with. I am anxious to get to work helping you if your quest is to improve the article rather than dismantle it. About the criticisms or critiques, they are made by Evangelical leaders. An encyclopedia article should tell the facts involved. Affinity Likely, the way to work with the rest of us in Wikipedia is not to write your own article and then get into a revert/edit war trying to substitute it wholesale. I realize that you emergents have a numerical advantage at the moment (although a critic [not me] did offer some statements recently that you guys deleted). Right now, while you have the numerical advantage is the time to help improve the article not the time to substitute another one for it. As I have repeatedly said, mostly emergent editors have worked with me over the years on this article. We have haggled and compromised on so many passages. I am willing to work with you guys too. My sleeves are already rolled up! I assure you that the end result will not be one we are all perfectly pleased with. That is the nature of compromise in writing a Wikipedia article. I am not pleased with much of the article as it stands either and I am anxious to improve it. I realize however that writing my own article in a sandbox and trying to substitute it for the existing one would meet with hostility. Would it not? The sandbox thing has been tried before and did not work. Let's work together with what we have to improve it. None of us should see ourselves as the EC article god who scraps the work of countless editors over the years to substitute your own (and a couple of partisan's) article. BTW guys, for future reference, the "appeal to authority" fallacy is a fallacy when the authority's expertise is in another field than the one discussed. An example of this fallacy would be to say that someone who has gone to medical school is more qualified to write on a theological topic because of their education. If a person is genuinely more knowledgeable in a given field it is not a fallacy to point that out. In fact, good scholarship often involves discovering which source of information is more reliable or informed. That is not a fallacy.Will3935 (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Will, per the wiki article on the subject, the Appeal to authority fallacy works regardless of "specialty" of the authority in question. While I think that a complete re-write is probably drastic, the current article is such a complete and utter mess, it really may be the only way to go.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean I was going to try to replace this article -just could use a blank thinkspace. Affinity likely •Hello• 03:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Some Existing Examples of Making Distinctions Between Elements in EC

Below are some example to show that we can and already have made some distinctions between the beliefs or activities of people in the emerging church movement. While these distinctions may not be sufficient and more need to be made, they do show that such distinctions are possible within the body of the existing article with dismantling or replacing it.

Critics have long recognized the great diversity within the movement which makes it difficult to critique with too broad of a brush.

Some observers consider the "emergent stream" to be one major part within the larger emerging church movement. This may be attributed to the stronger voice of the 'emergent' stream found in the US which contrasts the more subtle and diverse development of the movement in the UK, Australia and New Zealand over a longer period of time. As a result of the above factors, the use of correct vocabulary to describe a given participant in this movement can occasionally be awkward, confusing, or controversial. Key voices in the movement have been identified with Emergent Village, thus the rise of the nomenclature "emergent" to describe participants in the movement. Some people affiliated with the relational network called "Emergent Village" do not identify with the label "emergent". In this way some in the movement share with the house church movements a willingness to challenge traditional church structures/organizations though they also respect the different expressions of traditional Christian denominations.[14] Narrative explorations of faith, Scripture, and history are emphasized in some emerging churches over exegetical and doctrinal approaches (such as that found in systematic theology and systematic exegesis), which are often viewed as reductionist. Others embrace a multiplicity of approaches. Some in the movement believe it is necessary to deconstruct and reconstruct (redefine and reshape) Christianity in order to engage post-Christian Western culture in this two-way conversation rather than proclaim a message that is alien and unpopular to the prevailing culture. Others in the movement embrace the missiology that drive the movement in an effort to make the Christian message intelligible to those they believe are "lost"[citation needed]'Will3935 (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Redundancies in opening section

I am altering following paragraphs in the opening section to remove redundancies in the body of the article, and to make it much cleaner:

"Emerging Christians" deconstruct and reconstruct Christian beliefs and practices. This accommodation is found largely in this movement's embrace of postmodernism's postfoundational epistemology, and pluralistic approach to religion and spirituality. Proponents of this movement call it a "conversation" to emphasize its developing and decentralized nature as well as its emphasis on interfaith dialogue rather than verbal evangelism. The predominantly young participants in this movement prefer narrative presentations drawn from the biblical narratives over propositional exposition.

besides the lack of documentation for (and utter inaccuracy of) the parts relative to postfoundational epistemology, the deconstruct/reconstruct is contained in the body in more detail. The last two sentences are also summed up in the body, though the "conversation" aspect is key to the ECM and should probably stay in the intro.

Emerging church methodology includes frequent use of new technologies such as multimedia and the Internet. Emergent blogs are quite numerous, as are blogs of their critics. Emergent writers have also written many books and articles, and leaders in the movement often conduct seminars. Many critiques of the movement have been written by authors such as D.A. Carson and Millard Erickson.

Aside from the two authors cited, this could be said about any number of church movements, including the Seeker Sensitive movement, which is significantly different than the ECM. It is irrelevant, other than for the purpose of coatracking two anti-ECM authors.

Critics of the movement are found mostly among Evangelical scholars and ministers. Some academics critique the movement for being without legitimate theological, historical and philosophical roots. Conservative, evangelical theologians and pastors who disagree with the movement believe the embrace of a postmodernist philosophy leads to unorthodox theology, relativism, antinomianism, universalism, and syncretism. These critics frequently equate emerging church theology with the liberal theology that has historically been at odds with Christian fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. However, Christian postmodern academics such as John Franke[2], Scot McKnight[3], F. LeRon Shults[4] and the late Stanley Grenz[5] have been supporters of the movement. Actually, most of the prominent critics of the movement are from the Christian Fundamentalist and/or Christian Reformed camps, rather than the Evangelical one. Regardless, listing who's siding with whom is not high-level introductory material.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I blew two days finding the right references for that last part just last week, I agree. The lead was very heavy. It's preferable to have a terse summary in the introduction and then have the meat in the article itself. I don't mind losing any of my (few) edits if it furthers the cause of a well-written and NPOV article. Affinity likely •Hello• 03:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Much of the discussion that has gone on in the past on this discussion page and many of the changes over time have involved which names to include in the article. Most editors have thought that it is helpful to readers to give them some names to identify with the movement and to identify with critiques of the movement. When there are no names given to identify the movement it seems a bit vague to some readers and editors. I do not equate EC with the Word/Faith movement but let's use them as an example. Suppose we constructed an article about that movement with no mention of E. W. Kenyon or Kenneth Hagin. Further suppose that we mentioned critiques of the movement with no reference to D. R. McConnel or Robert Bowman. This would be a disservice to readers who want something tangible to go with the article so they can do further research. One of the benefits of Wikipedia is the Wiki links that lead to a chain of reading. At one time we had lists of prominent figures and prominent critics. The prominent figures list grew out of control until we made both lists separate articles which were subsequently deleted while I was not on watch. I think we should pay attention to the stub classification of the article. Certainly we are not guilty of giving too much information. Giving even less information is going to make the article less helpful to readers. If it is good and neutral style we are seeking we can accomplish this by well done rewording rather than removal of helpful information. If people end up reading the article with no names at all to associate with the movement or its critics they will have less material for further research. I have not counted heads on fundamentalist vs. Evangelical critics but certainly the prominent critics are mostly Evangelical (D. A. Carson, Millard Erickson, Carl Henry, R. Scott Smith, Douglas Groothius, Charles Colson etc. etc.). Certainly there are many Fundamentalist critics but they are sort of a fringe group not respected in scholarly circles and whose critiques do not make much of a splash in popular circles. Not many people "in the pews" are discussing Ray Yungen, for example. As to redundancy in an introduction there must not be too much but there will be some. An introduction should include a summary of what is to follow not just be a lead in. Lead ins are good style for newspaper articles but not for encyclopedia articles. Thus, not all "redundancy" is wrong in this context unless it is overkill or too specific. Again, I feel we are heading in the direction of sub-stub (if there were such a category). The last admin (at least I think Tricky Apron was an admin -- he was the one who gave us our ratings) who read the article did not suggest the removal of names etc. but to give good sourcing for them. He believed our article was not informative enough. He did not feel it was packed with too much information. Good writing will include some details to support general statements to give meat to the bones. The goal of this encyclopedia article is to help inform readers. Let's not lose sight of that. I'm afraid we are. I suggest that at least some names be included in the body of the article to help the readers and to give them links for further reading and research. Also, coatracking is a sometimes difficult issue to identify. It is the inclusion of material that is only nominally related to promote some specific agenda or other issue. Inclusion of the names of the two most prominent critics to give specific detail to the fact that there are critics is not, in my opinion, coatracking, just as the mention of emergent personalities by name in an article about the emerging church movement would not necessarily be coatracking. Certainly things such as this can get out of hand. At one time the major source of debate among editors was what constituted a prominent figure. One editor (who was himself somewhat prominent in the movement) argued that we should not use a "Western" measurement of prominent and included names of people with very tiny ministries. As valuable as their ministries might be I did not consider them prominent. The names we have deleted are genuinely prominent figures and I think the deletion deletes the informative quality which should be present in an encyclopedia article. Now the bulk of names mentioned is in the section on related movements. I think this may confuse readers who are ignorant about EC and just now trying to find out what it is. (If you are concerned about style, by the way, this section is disjointed and awkward. I can help try to clean it up and make it smoother if you guys are amenable to that.) You are all going to hate me for mentioning this but I have written for both published encyclopedias and for published journals. They are different animals. We must remember that this is an encyclopedia. We are not trying to write a magazine article, which would be judged with different criteria than an encyclopedia article. Will3935 (talk) 08:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to add qualifiers to avoid generalizations. An editor already deleted one for some reason. Editors who are new to the article should read the discussion page to get familiarized with the issues being addressed. I also changed Evangelical to "Fundamentalist" in the syncretistic spirituality criticism. I think this is an invalid criticism and I have not found it in any Evangelical critiques of the movement. Some fundamentalists are, however, quite obsessed with this criticism. I personally dislike having the criticism in the article at all since I believe it is invalid. Nevertheless, the "discernmentalist" crowd focuses on this issue more than any other and one can find abundant criticisms in books and on the internet making this claim. Thus, I think it should stay but we should make clear that the criticism does not come from Evangelicals.Will3935 (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Some excellent edits to the opening paragraph, Lyonscc. It has been in need of a good pruning for a long time. I concur with the thoughts that the opening paragraph should be concise and to the point with more complicated issues discussed in the body of the article. Gold Dragon (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, Will, but have yet to look at your changes. The introduction was going too far into detail and at times adding to what was to come in the article and the tension between pro and con was too apparent making the article lose it's neutrality at the onset. I think a good first step is to trim what needs trimming and THEN add what needs adding. Nothing taken out is lost in any case but the lead wasn't the best spot for them. I felt the STUB tag arose not from the article not being long enough, but the article not properly addressing what EC is- which is what he said. What EC is was not apparent partly because of the messy structure and partly because criticisms were in the descriptions making the descriptions difficult to follow. It was as if one had to extrapolate what the EC is from what it isn't. Which is why Tricky Apron wrote of being confused and was even confused of the various prominent figures from different faiths (making it apparent that he didn't properly understand the decentralized nature of the conversation). For many Christians the way EC operates outside of denominationalism is difficult to grasp at first. I'm curious what will be taken out before I begin finding properly sourced information to add. This seems to be only the pruning phase. Affinity likely •Hello• 13:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. I guess I'll have to see where this is going. I am sometimes overly paranoid about changes because not everyone who thinks they can write actually can. We have had some very poor writers try to change things on the article and when I try to delete their edits they feel offended. I doubt if the stub categorization was due to criticisms of the movement included in the wrong section. Perhaps we should ask Tricky Apron. Nevertheless, I agree that criticisms belong only in the criticism section and that the movement be described without criticism first. I have recently deleted some of the criticisms that are offered in the wrong section. One question I get from people who are ignorant of EC is "Who are some of the prominent figures involved?" They seem to need concrete specifics. As to why there is diversity among the movement can be explained for the most part by the common bond of postmodernism (or, if you prefer, a "rejection of modernism"). Other commonalities flow from this fundamental one. Granted, there are a great many other emphases such as missional living (which is understood a little differently by different people in the movement) so there is much more that needs to be said to define and describe the movement. My concern still stands, however, that we not prune sections without making up for this with concrete specifics in other sections. I still believe we need to make the article more informative rather than less informative. If we can accomplish that by moving things around and changing some wording etc. I am fine with that. Excuse my paranoia.Will3935 (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Add a Summary/Conclusion?

No one has said this but I have a suspicion that many emergents find the article to have a negative feel because it ends abruptly with the criticisms section (and the Moreland quote). Perhaps this can be softened by adding some kind of neutral conclusion to the article that perhaps offers some statistics etc., tracking trends as they are currently unfolding in the movement. I think this would help to give the article a more neutral feel. I don't think that anything in the article as it exists is blatantly false but the way it ends does give the impression that it sides with the critics. The last word appears to be the endorsed word. What do you guys think about adding a neutral ending that summarizes the article, notes current trends and perhaps comments on the future of the movement as current trends and specifics would indicate? I am not volunteering to write it though as it would involve more research than my calendar and health allow at the moment.Will3935 (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea! You're right, this may be a good way to summarize the characteristics and criticisms and wrap things up.(fingers crossed) But maybe it would be better to work on the article first so that the summary recalls what has been wonderfully transformed into a NPOV article! haha. Affinity likely •Hello• 20:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fold Criticisms Into the Body of the Article?

Affinity Likely has suggested that instead of keeping the values and characteristics section separate from the criticisms section we "fold the criticisms into the body of the article." Lysonscc has said that he believes this is confusing and that the amount of criticism he finds already in the body is what kept Tricky Apron from understanding the movement. Gold Dragon has also argued for maintaining these as distinct categories over the years. Perhaps the idea of ending on a neutral note per my suggestion above would be more acceptable to a majority of editors. Forgive me if I am wrong Affinity Likely, but I suspect that your reason for wanting to "fold in" the criticisms was that with the article ending with them (and the passionate quote by Moreland) it seems the critics get the last word (even though the very last section does discuss the diversity issue and the problem of painting with too broad of a brush) and that the article feels anti-EC as a result. I suggest that my proposal in the above section actually would be better, more popular, and easier to do.Will3935 (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I was/am grateful that the criticism section was separate on this article and agree that the blending of both in the values and characteristics section makes it difficult to understand. I wondered if down the road this kind of separation would keep this article from ever qualifying for good article status (which I think is a worthy goal to write towards). However, I'm not sure if there is a possibility of that anyway given the nature of the subject matter. In any case, there is room for this article to keep that section based on WP:crit where they add "In articles whose subjects are themselves points of view, such as philosophies (Idealism, Materialism, Existentialism, etc.), political outlooks Left-wing politics, Right-wing politics, etc.), religions (Judaism, Christianity, Atheism, etc.), intermingling an explanation of the article's subject with criticism of that subject can sometimes result in confusion about what adherents of the point of view believe and what critics hold. To avoid this confusion, it can be useful to first explain the point of view clearly and succinctly (including disagreements among schools or denominations), and then explain the point of view of critics of the outlook." I think this clearly fits that category. I was just trying to figure out WP ideals are on this and other topics. Affinity likely •Hello• 19:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The concepts outlined in the WP:crit policy was what I was trying to achieve when I created the Criticisms section. I believe the confusion and appearance of the article being overly critical is the failure to adhere to this policy resulting in criticisms being sprinkled throughout the article. Gold Dragon (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think some of what you refer to is in the generous orthodoxy section and I will do what I can to remove it early next week. What other criticisms do you find sprinkled in the values and characteristics section? We need to address those.Will3935 (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Generous Orthodoxy Section

Trying to read the article as an objective newcomer, the section that seems poorest to me (other than the similar movements section) is the one on Generous Orthodoxy. This is also the most controversial. I do not know who included the references to Borg, but I wonder if they realize just how radical he is. Citing him so prominently in this section makes EC look guilty by association of all of his more radical views. Borg seems like a nice guy but theologically he is a little to the left of Satan (an exaggeration and thus intended to be a joke!). Also, the section is written like a sloppy mess. I suggest the section begin with mentioning the orgin of the term (Hans Frei), defining it in broad terms, discussing the most prominent proponent of it (McLaren), and ending with a qualifier explaining that this characteristic is not found universaly in the movement the way it is among the more extreme figures, but the practice of openness and interfaith dialog are characteristics found among most participants in the movement. I do know some emergents that are firm in their beliefs (and thus not truly generous with the concept of orthodoxy)but they practice a sort of non-dogmatic approach to dialog with people of other religions. Does that sound like a reasonable rewrite to you guys? If so, I can write it and you can feel free to edit it in any way that seems right to you. If you insist upon keeping the Borg reference in there I can do that too. I will just need to clean up that part quite a bit. I would appreciate a response to this posting because I will not do the rewrite unless you agree to it ahead of time. Remember my rewrite is subject to editing, so at any place my biases come out you can correct it, or we can lovingly haggle over it until we come to a compromise that we can all live with.Will3935 (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the Marcus Borg information. I think the quote makes a good point and I don't mind including him as part of the movement. Maybe Lyonscc or Gold Dragon has something to add but I hope it stays. Affinity likely •Hello• 20:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would probably suggest removing Borg, as to accurately include him while diffusing the obvious GBA that goes along with the quotation would require a good bit of original research in the article. This does demonstrate something about the ECM - willingness to recognize the existence of truth as something separate from the person who expressed it. However, as an earlier commenter noted above, N.T. Wright (whose body of work is more accepted by the ECM than the entirety of Borg's) and Borg are diametrically opposed on so many issues, and only giving voice to Borg in the article places in the minds of many an immediate negative connotation, due to the rest of Borg's (deservedly criticized) baggage. Many of the 'discernmentalist mafia' use Borg as the gateway to broad-brush the ECM. Quoting him, to quote a mentor of mine, is like leading with your chin...--Lyonscc (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about Hans Frei, apart from the quote of his "Generosity without orthodoxy is nothing, but orthodoxy without generosity is worse than nothing." I'll be interested in what you have to add. McLaren('s book) would be an obvious addition but I'm afraid of what you'll add about it. I like the information in the last paragraph but the wording is choppy. Affinity likely •Hello• 20:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to fear what I will write since you and others can edit it. I am working intensely on a project for the next few days (in spite of ill health) but I'll see what I can do with this section early next week. I'll keep the Borg quote and clean it up. Again, if you want to, you can edit it. Let's just remember that no one person determines NPOV. Proponents of EC may have biases which cause them to present information according to PR priorities. Critics may have biases that cause them to present information which make the movement look bad. That is why people from various viewpoints should be allowed to participate in the process. I am in the minority at the moment and you guys seem to feel comfortable ganging up on me. That's OK, but remember to let me have a voice and please be more careful when you say you know what I believe or what I mean. I have been told on this page that I believe all kinds of things I don't. Isn't that the kind of thing you guys are objecting to regarding EC? Please then be careful not to be guilty of it yourselves. I also find I am often misunderstood. Perhaps it is because you are assuming I mean things I don't. Again, that is the kind of thing youi dislike about EC critics. You see, it works both ways. We are all human and believe it or not we all have our biases. That is why I should not be excluded from the process of writing the article and that is why your temporary numerical advantage should not be taken advantage of to silence a balancing point of view. Most often we come to NPOV through the process of compromise. I will think the article is skewed in EC favor as a piece of promotional propaganda and you will think it is overly critical of the movement. That will be a good sign that it is NPOV, not when any one editor or any one "side" has his or her biases satisfied. I will be back early next week to work on the generous orthodoxy section and perhaps to edit some of the changes you will have made in the meantime.Will3935 (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, a statement was made earlier on this page that implied that I cannot really contribute to this article since I am not really an advocate of all aspects of the movement (remember that I have no problems with EC practices -- just epistemology and theology of some of its prominent figures). The comparison was made to someone trying to comment on a certain kind of food who had not eaten it. I have written a very lengthy article on Jehovah's Witness denial of the trinity. Was that invalid since I am not a JW? The Wikipedia article on Scientology has been a battleground. Scientologist editors have suggested that critics of their movement should have no voice in the article. Do you agree? Do you think the best way to create a NPOV article on Scientology or any other movement is to only allow participants to comment on it? Sometimes an outside voice adds an objective viewpoint that insiders fail to express. See you guys next week.Will3935 (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Of course, Will. I guess it depends on if the contribution is NPOV. I like when you get like this though. Then I have a renewed hope. Affinity likely •Hello• 23:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Revamping of the Article for NPOV

I've begun work on de-slanting the article and removing the dead links. Pretty basic stuff to this point.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Who Defines NPOV?

As you might expect I don't agree with many of the deletions and will edit them soon. One of the points that I think does need to be addressed is who is the ultimate determiner of NPOV. Advocates of a movement always believe they are and insist they have no bias whatsoever. Critics believe they are the true objective commentators. The result is that editors often engage in NPOV wars, swinging their NPOV clubs at one another. I think NPOV is the most abused concept in Wikipedia. What it means to most editors is their personal preference. I don't think the recent edits represent true NPOV. The irony with an article like this one is that emergent editors, rather than encourage dialog, believe they have an NPOV metanarrative. They have the NPOV absolutes that others must bow before. Once they declare something to be NPOV their assertion of power with their NPOV absolutes must be submitted to and their is no further room for dialog. This is ironic because it violates what the movement stands for publicly regarding Christian doctrine and practices. As the article now stands it is a highly censored piece of promotional propaganda for the emerging church movement. As an encyclopedia, this format's purpose is not to be a propaganda ministry for any movement. That is what the participant in movements such as Scientology, Word-Faith, etc. do not seem to understand as they get very combatative with "critics" who wish for the whole story to be told about their movement. Lysonscc has deleted some criticisms that are genuinely made by many Evangelical scholars. Why do readers have no right to know that these criticisms have been made by these scholars. Why are Evangelicals such as Millard Erickson now mislabeled as fundamentalists? Readers do not have to agree with Evangelical critics. That is their right. But they do also have a right to know about these criticisms. The article sounds like it was written on an emergent blog at this point not in an encyclopedia that respects free speech and factual, informative reporting. I may have biases, but the current state of the article is disgracefully biased and misleading. I will have to compromise with the EC editors on this article but I will return very soon to work out this compromise. Perhaps in the meantime you can consider what I have said about NPOV. Do you really think your NPOV is the absolute that all must bow before or can we work together to produce a neutral and informative article that informs all and misleads none? It looks like it may be a long time before I will be able to address the Generous Orthodoxy section. There is too much poor editing to correct now.Will3935 (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, you would start with defining a movement by members of that movement. If you cannot define it in such a way that members of the movement would say "yes, that's true", then you've just created a strawman. If you cannot pass this basic test, then you've failed with NPOV. That is why, with my edits, I'm trying to define it in a way that people who are in the ECM would say "yes, that is true about what we believe." Then, if there is a perceived difference between major branches within the movement, those should be documented as such. Finally, if critics can reasonably document a difference between the perception of those in a movement from what they perceive as the reality of the situation, that is what the criticism section is for...

I will be reverting some of your earlier changes, as they have dead links, or (as with the quotations provided without context) they skew the POV that same way that prooftexting with Biblical passages can make it seem that Scripture supports things it does not. Standalone quotes belong in wikiquotes, generally, if they are notable.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You have stepped up to the plate and claim to speak for the entire movement. If the article does not jive with your limited, personal experience of it then you surmise it must be inaccurate. This is not good scholarship. All objective observers should be able to have input on what a movement believes. I have studied it and experienced it too. This claim of "proponent only neutrality" is where there has been much conflict in the article about Word-Faith, for example. In public forums such as this they try to hide some of their more controversial teachings. Thus, only critics would add this information that readers have a right to know about. I do not accept your premise that you alone have the right to define the emerging church movement. You obviously have a bias toward the movement and appear to wish the article to make it appealing to outsiders. If you find a dead link, by the way, the thing to do is to remove the link, not all of the surrounding content. Please put away your NPOV sword and let's just be honest about the facts of the movement. We should provide readers with all of the pertinent information in a neutral way. I can participate in this. You are trying to say that I cannot because you are the only one who really knows what is NPOV. I disagree with you very strongly Lysonscc. Please be open to the Wikipedia process of give and take with people of all views. This is not an emergent blog. It is a neutral encyclopedia. (How about my NPOV swordsmanship? Pretty good huh?)Will3935 (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Going back through the archives of this page, and elsewhere (which I've been trying to study for "POV" the past couple of weeks), most of the edits I've been making are consistent with the contentions of "we don't believe that"... This is certainly not an emergent blog - neither you nor I are members of the ECM. However, I do feel very strongly that it is incumbent on we, as Christians, not to misrepresent our brothers and sisters who belong to this movement. This means that reading any section on what defines the movement (or what is clearly represented by the main stream of the movement) should be seen as "yes, that is correct" when they read it. For example, many of them have read Carson's book and said - "basically, he defines the ECM as Brian McLaren, recognizes that it is bigger than BM, but then tars and feathers it based upon BM."

Also, you write In public forums such as this they try to hide some of their more controversial teachings. Thus, only critics would add this information that readers have a right to know about. Since this is a general article on the ECM, perhaps the reason for "hiding" more controversial teachings is that - apart from certain cases - they don't generally represent the movement. So rather than 'right to know', it is an issue of whether you're reading an encyclopedic version or the National Enquirer version.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Propositionless Evangelism Section Revamp

I've revamped this section to remove two dead/blog links (sonlifeafrica and equip.org) and [[WP:NOR|original research] in its argumentation/biblical quotation.

Can someone please tell me what is wrong with the Scripture references. I don't understand.Will3935 (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with referencing scripture - however, when you're trying to debate scriptural adherence (which was what this section was doing), you are now venturing into documentation of original research on a page, which is in violation of WP:NOR.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Moreland Quotation

I have removed the quotation, because it deals with postmodernism, not the ECM, specifically, and it gives the POV that the ECM embraces postmodernist philosophy, rather than being a movement for the purpose of reaching a world which operates in a postmodernist philosophy. In short, the quotation is only tangential to the ECM, but its placement deceptively suggests that it is ABOUT the ECM, as a whole.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Denial of Certitude of Faith

I have altered this section, removing the reference to Brian McLaren, who - admittedly in the original version - holds a radical view, which is not congruent with the bulk of the ECM (so why mention it?). I also removed the soundwitness.org link, which is a Lutheran blog, not a published journal.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Like it or not, Brian McLaren is the most prominent figure in EC. Really. It is just plain false to deny this. To act as though he were not a prominent figure in the movement is disingenuous. Rather than cover up his identification with the movement the article should acknowledge it and then carefully explain that he does not speak for everyone who identifies with EC. Also, the bulk of the movement does embrace postfoundationalism. Whether one admits it or not postfoundationalism rejects certitude in faith. I have collected a large number of quotations from a variety of members of the movement that speak to this issue. As the article now stands it is misleading. It is very sad that we can not be honest with the Wikipedia readers Lysonscc. I will have to admit some misinformation and disingenuous editing in order to compromise with you but you are trying to single-handedly skew an article which dozens of editors have compromised on over a period of years. Do you not think you are acting like a bully? Furthermore, I know that many of your edits reflect ignorance. I can tell you are not a trained theologian. You have read some books and spent some time talking to likeminded people on your blog but this does not make you a trained scholar who is an authority on the things you speak so confidently about. You are quite mistaken on some things and it is not good for you to try to impose misleading misinformation upon unsuspecting readers. I know you are sincere but you are quite biased and in some cases grossly mistaken. Let's work together. I will have to let some of your censorship and misinformation stand but perhaps we can calm down and come to some reasonable compromises. I don't think you should consider yourself as the ultimate authority on this topic and the only one who has an NPOV. I also don't think you should try to ramrod rather than reason. Let's be reasonable. I'll give you some time to think about these things. I am still heavily engaged in a project. Please work with me in an ethical and amenable manner. I will try my best to do likewise. As I said before, a compromise will leave neither of us happy. You appear to want to be the only one who likes the finished product of the article. That is not the Wikipedia way.Will3935 (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your foray into the fallacies of WP:Appeal_to_authority, Will. I am attempting to BE honest, and this is a collaborative process. To this point, I've not seen you use this page for anything but complaining about edits, without suggesting appropriate rewording. MacLaren is a voice in the movement that many consider to be "leading", but - as numbers go - his church is not anywhere near one of the larger ones in the movement. The quote used in denial of certitude of faith was specifically refuted by Mark Driscoll and Dan Kimball, two other prominent figures in the ECM, along with other ECM ministers. So, its inclusion is misleading.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fundamentalist vs. Evangelical

Most of the criticism of the ECM comes from Fundamentalist and/or Reformed sources, rather than Evangelical/Seeker Sensitive sources. I'm trying to be more precise by making this distinction.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is simply untrue. We used to have a list of many books and articles by respected Evangelical scholars who critiqued EC. This was deleted eventually along with the books promoting EC. Reformed scholars are not necessarily fundamentalists. I know there is no definitive source to say who is or is not a fundamentalist but all Evangelical scholars consider Carson a reformed Evangelical. Seeker sensitive churches are not the only ones considered Evangelical. It appears you need to do some research on this topic. Seriously.Will3935 (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed "Evangelical" as a descriptor, sticking with "Christian", instead, since the Fundy/Evang/SS definition is fuzzy...--Lyonscc (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Some evangelical critics of EC include D. A. Carson, Millard Erickson, Charles Colson, Carl Henry, Douglas Groothius, Josh McDowel, J. P. Moreland, and Michael Horton (and many more). Their writings are much more prominent and popular than the fundy critics like Ken Silva and Ray Yungen. I know you do not learn about these critics on an emergent blog which is why emergents should read books and articles from all perspectives, including Evangelical ones. Isn't that what dialog requires?Will3935 (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have books by a number of folks you've listed, and while I would not include Carson as an Evangelical, several of the others are (though I'm not familiar with all of their criticisms). As for blogs, the group blog I operate has 1 ECM member, three Calvinist/Reformed members, 1 AoG minister, two Restoration Movement members and some others, as well. We do try to stay up on what is being said pro- and con- ECM, and agree with many of the criticisms, while also recognizing - even among the "scholarly" authors you've listed - a number of straw men constructed based upon MacLaren quotes (in and out of context) and over-generalization. One such straw man is that all of the ECM embraces postmodern thought.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"One such straw man is that all of the ECM embraces postmodern thought." Amen to that. Affinity likely •Hello• 23:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Postmodern Hermeneutics

The recent revision of this section read:

Postmodern literary theory rejects the referential theory of language (semantic externalism) and the correspondence theory of truth. For postmodern interpreters any text such as the Bible takes on a personal meaning as they experience it, but it has no objective, authoritative meaning such as authorial intent to distinguish a right from wrong interpretation. A plurality of Scriptural interpretations is acknowledged in the emerging church movement. Emergent Village leader Tony Jones says “We must stop looking for some objective Truth that is available when we delve into the text of the Bible.” Participants in the movement exhibit a particular concern for the effect of the modern reader's cultural context on the act of interpretation echoing the ideas of postmodern thinkers such as Jacques Derrida and Stanley Fish.

This is highly problematic, and would not cover all (or most) of the ECM, primarily because it assumes that the ECM embraces postmodern literary theory (as defined in the section), rather than using it as a contextual tool for evangelism without embracing it. The statement For postmodern interpreters any text such as the Bible takes on a personal meaning as they experience it, but it has no objective, authoritative meaning such as authorial intent to distinguish a right from wrong interpretation. is also way too broad. It might apply to postmodern philosophy, in general, but it hardly applies in a universal fashion to the ECM.

I am removing major chunks of this section, though if you can come up with a fair re-wording, it could use some fleshing out.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also suggest more context to Jones' statement, as it seems to contradict a number of things Jones has written or stated in recent conversations, personal blog posts and interviews. I do not have the work in question, but it seems to be an incomplete thought/statement, truncated for effect.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I can live with the current compromise on the pomo hermeneutics section. I think the Jone's quote illustrated the point that postfoundational, postmodern hermeneutics can not embrace a single, authoritative meaning to the text. Still, I am willing to settle for the current version.Will3935 (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)