Talk:Emerging church/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

This archive is of discussions which occured during 2006 but were at the top rather than bottom of the talk page when the archiving occured.

Good job with editing

Whoever edited the introduction to the emerging church has done a great job. Much more succinct and to the point. Good broad overview for an introduction. Thank you.

Daniel

Daniel, I see that you are new to Wikipedia (at least as an editor). You can thank Gold Dragon for the edits you liked. One suggestion, and I don't know how to say this politely, but I reccomend you have someone check your grammar, usage, and spelling before inserting your edits. There were several problems of this kind in the edits you made. Also, discussion takes place mostly at the bottom of the page and you can sign your comments here by clicking on the four tildes at the bottom right after it says in bold letters "Sign Your Name" It's quicker. Also note the message that says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." It really helps to have thick skin when working as a Wikipedia editor.Will3935 16:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Australia has a lot to contribute to these discussions.

One of the major contributions that Australia has to offer in this discussion is the need for mission to remain absolutely central in discussions about the emerging church. Our changing cultural context and the rapid decline in Church attendance throughout the Western world, necessitates a re-examination of theolgy. Eddie Gibbs (2005:178) states that we "need to move beyond theology of mission as a separate discipline to a missional theology.” In other words, all theology must be re-examined through the paradigm of mission - instead of through the lense of Christendom. Debate about post-modernity verses modernity must not be the focus of the emerging church! It is a red herring. (At the end of the day, we DO live in a postmodern world, and how we respond to this is the only debate about culture worth having.) Instead, we must revisit our core theology through mission. Said another way, we need to re-discover the central theology of Jesus - which was missional! David Bosch, in his book Transforming Mission, does an excellent job outlining the paradigm of mission from the Gospels, Pauline letters and major paradigm shifts throughout the history of the Christian church. Frost and Hirsch (2005) suggest that Christology must inform our Missiology, which then informs our Ecclesiology. The only reason the emerging church experiments with the form and function of church (ecclesiology) is because it aims to recover a Christ-centred understanding of mission! Therefore, a focus on mission is the best way to bring meaningful discussion between those who agree and disagree with the so called "emerging church."

Secondly, while I agree that the emerging church is, by definition, decentralized, it is fast becomming organized, as seen in countries such as Australia. Large organisations such as the FORGE Mission Training Network (www.forge.org.au) are creating networks across the country and meaningful dialogue between 'emerging churches' and mainline churches. New leaders are being accredited by mainstream colleges through FORGE, as they learn the skills to pioneer missional churches and re-vitalize mainstream churches for mission. In fact, I agree with proponents of FORGE, who suggest that a more appropriate name for the 'emerging church' is the 'emerging missional church.' The discussions in Australia are entirely different from the types of 'emerging church' focussing on individualism and reactionary pleuralism. Evangelicals who fear or diagree with this new movement would do well to seek dialogue with constructive voices around the world.

Some excellent Australian resources that are not mentioned in the text:

- Frost, M and Hirsch, A. The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21st-Century Church (Peabody: Hendrickson Press, 2003), 33-59, 201-230.

- Frost, M. Exiles (2006) - new release

References:

Bosch, D. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1991), 368-510.

Gibbs, E. Leadership Next: Changing Leaders in a Changing Culture (Leicester, England: IVP, 2005.)

Someone doesn't like emergent, and they changed this page because of it.

What happened? Someone went through and removed a bunch of pro-emergent links and added anti-emergent stuff. There are almost no pro-emergent blogs or sites linked to. Why would someone do this?

You apparently have not been reading the dialogue going on toward the bottom of the page. We have had many issues to deal with over time and now it seems we will end up deleting all or nearly all blogs pro and critical of EC per Wikipedia policy. No one person or perspective has caused the content of the article to be what it is. In fact, the one insisting we delete all links to blogs is one of the most pro-EC editors working on the article. Your input (at the bottom of the page) is certainly welcome.Will3935 14:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Too much talk of emerging vs. emergent?

It seems there is too much emphasis on a difference between 'emerging' and 'emergent.' The two terms have become one in the same, if we are to be entirely honest. Emergent, it seems, is less about politics, Christian or otherwise, than perhaps it was in the early days. Many emergents are rather conservative in a number of ways.

Also, I think it's time we begin capitalizing the word 'Emergent.' It's a formal noun.

I think you would get a good chuckle if you read through all of the comments toward the bottom of the page arguing exactly the opposite about emerging vs. emergent. I would like to hear more of your point of view. I take it you are pro-EC from the blogs you added. I am critical of EC but I try to be nice on this page. Most of the those who insist on distinguishing the terms emerging and emergent are those who consider themselves "emerging but not emergent." I know they are a minority but we felt we had to be fair to them. Your further insight into this issue is most welcome. It seems to be the most difficult for editors on this page to come to a consensus to. What we have now is a compromised version no one is fully happy with but everyone seems willing to tolerate. Again, any help you can give is welcome. Also, I agree with your comment about capitalization. "Emergent" should be capatalized when used as a noun and not capatalized when used as an adjective. If you spot any uses of the word as a noun that are not capatalized, please correct them.--Will3935 22:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess my thought is that going on what is posted here, it seems that the difference between "Emergent" and "Emerging" is profound. I think of emerging the verb, and in that case, there is always an 'emerging' church. Emergent, the noun, refers to something that is very much distinct. Also, I don't think most people, even those in the know, make the distinction between "Emerging" and "Emergent." It's probably worth noting here, but perhaps to a lesser degree. Just a suggestion on my part, however.

Yes, I am what you would call a "theologically and politically conservative emergent."

--Mrupert@gmail.com 23:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I felt the same way about the terms as you, but some of the contributors felt very strongly and somewhat emotionally otherwise. What really interests me now is that these contributors were people like yourself -- conservative EC. On a personal level, it would help me a great deal if you could provide links on this discussion page elaborating on this issue of terminology. You may want to check this one out

[1] I recently submitted revisions of an article I wrote elsewhere based on the dialogue I have had with others here who have insisted they are emerging but not emergent. If you can help me I would greatly appreciate it. I'm getting dizzy from this terminology debate. Thanks for your input.--Will3935 23:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Who determines what is right?

I recently visited this defination and found some very major changes - major sections removed and names removed for lists and people added who have nothing to do with the energing church - it has become an "Emergent" defination and it is only voices that seem to be supportive of Emergent. I find this so very wrong, and so very not what the emerging church is about. bad form all - very bad form.

John -- First, it would be nice if you signed in. Also, the rest of us are talking at the bottom of the page. You do not specify what your complaints are but several people from different perspectives (emergent, emerging, anti-EC, and neutral) have come to a point of agreement on this article. I am sure you don't think that you should be the ONE to determine what is right and override the consensus of this diversity of contributors. Would it be sufficient if we just put your name back on the prominent figures list?--Loudguy 03:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that I'm not the only one out there with this issue. I am sure if you look around there are many more that are disturbed with the dominate Emergent views being expressed. I too feel that this article misrepresents the many voices of the emerging church. I do appreciate the addition of emergent vs. emerging but the article still needs ongoing work. However, I will not add or delete any thing, I only seek a global understanding that the emerging church is not Emergent and I desire the article to portray that. And for the record, Okeefe and Ginkworld have been a big part and a unique voice in the emerging conversation, he has my vote. --71.92.100.224 09:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)