Talk:Emerging church/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

This archive covers mainly conversations during the month of July, 2006.

Pioneers

Let's continue discussion/inclusion/exclusion of pioneers here. I'll be sure to read up on Hauerwas. I'm also going to bring back Driscoll. While he has been critical of many within the emergent church, he clearly identifies with the emergent church as well and someone I would consider to be a significant pioneer. Here are a couple of links. "Criswell Theological Review : A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church by Mark Driscoll (PDF)" "Christianity Today - Men are from Mars Hill by Jason Bailey"

You have a point on Driscoll. Some websites (pro and contra EC) seem to consider him as having a change of heart about the whole movement. I don't know him personally, so I can't really say, however you are absolutely right in identifying him as a pioneer of the movement, whatever he is saying at this point. I understand the inclusion. I do think that perhaps something should be said about McLaren's prominence in the movement as his entry does not indicate this at this point. This is not a major point either way, though. One person I keep thinking of who is not listed is Nancy Murphy. If the section were titled "prominent leaders," I might understand her exclusion, but I think of her as a significant, early "pioneer." On a different topic, when I put citations in the criticisms paragraph I will face some choices. Since this is a section about Evangelical criticisms I could just cite instances of where these criticisms have been made. This alone may seem inadequate to others who are expecting citations which show examples of emergents saying or doing the things others are critical of. Anybody have any thoughts?--Will3935 10:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend finding good sources from critics that actually quote or reference real instances of what they consider to be emergent "abuses" or controversial statements and avoid referencing those critics who simply make unsupported blanket statements. Gold Dragon 14:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. Smith and Carson are probably the best sources for these kinds of references. I hope you can bear with me. I'm having some extremely frustrating health problems at the moment, but I should have these citations within one week. Very sorry for the delay.--Will3935 23:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No hurry about those citations. There are other editors who can also do the work. Gold Dragon 13:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought -- I think it would be clearer to label the section "Prominent Figures" rather than "Pioneers." Although all movements have their own roots (and their roots have roots of their own) it seems a little harder for me to track down an exact moment that the emerging church movement began. It seems to have evolved more gradually. If we do keep the "Pioneers" label I would say Nancy Murphy's inclusion would be required. (Note to Gold Dragon -- I appreciate you prayers for my health and your patience with my crankiness, which I seem to develop whenever I am in pain (back and knees) or sick in some way. I do enjoy working with you on this project. I suffer from "project mania" so I will see this through with you even if I take time out due to ill health. Bless You.)--Will3935 22:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, can we not have people adding themselves to the "pioneers" (now "prominent figures") list. If you have a blog or a church, that does not necessarily make you a prominent leader as there are countless blogs and churches. There are many genuinely prominent figures who are not on the list (such as Eddie Gibbs, Steve Chalke, Nancy Murphy, Rob Bell, LeRon Shultz, Donal Miller and several others) since we cannot even add all of the legitmately prominent leaders lest we make the list unreasonably long. There is not room for everyone who has a blog etc. to promote themselves in this section especially since we have not included many genuinely prominent figures. It makes the article appear poorly researched to include minor players in this section and exclude so many major ones. By the way, I will do what I can to reduce the size of the critics section--Will3935 01:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I feel that Driscoll and many others belong on the "Emerging Church" article as they claim to be emerging missional churches. While the page speaks only of the "Emergent" stream I think it's time to make a separate article named "Emergent Church" rather than "Emerging Church" only. There is a huge difference theologically. I claim that I am emerging but I am not emergent in any way, shape, or form. There finally needs to be a distinction between the two.–--71.92.100.224 12:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is great to get input on this. I have yet to find anyone who can identify the difference between emergent and emerging (unless one strictly identifies emergent with emergentvillage). All but a very few commentators consider the two essentially synonomous. It seems to me that the few people who wish to make a distinction consider the term emergent to represent something too organized and conservative. Perhaps this could be mentioned in the article but I don't think it merits a separate article, which I believe would be confusing to readers. D. A. Carson (regardless of whether one agrees with him regarding the movement, one must concede he is one of our era's premier scholars) considers any distinction between emergent and emerging to be unnecessarily fine and confusing. I agree with Carson, and think making separate articles on emergent and emerging would be somewhat like making "six cylinder automobiles" a separate article from "automobiles." If you could enlighten the rest of us (with references) as to the "huge theological diffences" between emergent and emerging I would be extremely grateful. As to many others being included in the list of prominent figures I would say that exclusion from such a list does not mean one is not genuinely a part of the movement. Gold Dragon and I, while differing on our opinion of the movement, agree that the list of prominent figures is unreasonably long for an encyclopedia article. I repeat that there is not room on the list to add every single emergent who functions in any kind of minor leadership role in the movement, especially when very prominent leaders are not currently on the list. Thanks for your input. I was beginning to feel alone on this page. By the way, you wouldn't be so kind as to answer my plea for help on endnotes (on posts above and below)? I guess I may have to work on this until I figure it out the way everyone else has, but it would be very, very kind of someone to help me in my ignorance. Also, you may have overlooked it, but Driscoll is on the list.--Will3935 01:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I added Eddie Gibbs to the list of prominent figures. There are still others, like Donald Miller (although he may quarrel with his own inclusion I consider him an emergent), Rob Bell, and Nancy Murphy who could be included. The list cannot be infinitely long, though.--Will3935 01:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have to strictly identify emergent with emergentvillage. That’s where it came from. You cannot say that a few prominent figures are the emerging church. I agree these guys are the leaders in the Emergent Church which Driscoll would not be a part. If that is true then only a handful would be considered as real prominent figures, such as Tony Jones, Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt and maybe a few others. They are Emergent.

However, there are many churches today that would describe themselves as emerging churches but in no way Emergent. All the churches listed on acts29network[1] would consider themselves as emerging churches but not Emergent in any way. Friends, there is a fine line between what Emergent is and what is emerging. Dan Kimball writes a good piece on the origin of the two terms here, -[2]

Also, Driscoll did a quick interview for the Desiring God conference coming soon about the difference between emerging and emergent - [3] There are many that I can find that would consider themselves Emerging Evangelical, Emerging Missional, or just plain Emerging before they would ever dabble with Emergent.

Joel Rainey on “Emerging Evangelical” - [4] - He states, “Nevertheless, while Carson is accurate in his descriptions of these inaccuracies, he wrongly paints with a very broad brush, failing for example, to deal with much of anything in this movement outside of Emergent.”

Another blogger wrote, “However, although I am emerging I do not agree with the "Emergent Church". That is why it has become a conversation with questions rising up without necessarily needing an answer. I would like to distinguish that I believe there is a difference between the "Emergent Church" and the "emerging church"... - [5]

Emergent has become a sect - A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group (Christianity) by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice. The emerging church has many streams and to say that Emergent is primary is wrong and false. To me this whole article speaks of Emergent primarily as the emerging church.

Tell me how can I be Evangelical and be Emerging without being Emergent? There need to be a distinction…Emergent is not the emerging church, the emerging church is the emerging church. Like I said, a separate article by the name Emergent or Emergent Church is necessary.

You make some good points and your references are helpful. I think the tricky part here was discussed by Driscoll and pointed out by Kimball when he said "Because the words were so similar (emerging and emergent), through time they sort of became interchangeably used rather than two distinct terms as they were originally." As any lexicographer will tell you, popular usage determines popular meaning. If there is a more specific distinction made within a smaller subset of the populace it certainly warrants mention in the article, but it seems that a separate article would be confusing due to the issue of prevailing popular usage. It is interesting that I have found at least one website that called itself "emerging" which considered the "emergent" stream too closely associated with emergentvillage and thus too organized and conservative. Driscoll, on the other hand, claims to be emerging but not emergent because he considers "emergent" theology too liberal. It seems to me that you have made some good points which would lead me to think that some mention of the distinction should be made within the article but I personally fear that a separate article in an encyclopedia in which the average reader is probably not clued in to the discussion on this distinction would be confusing and perhaps even ambiguous. I think you will agree that nearly all articles and books about the movement designed for popular consumption use the terms as essentially synonomous, but since making the distinction is important to some within the movement, it should be mentioned in the article. You can always start your own separate article, but I strongly suspect that would lead soon to discussion about merging the two articles. I'm fairly new to wikipedia, but it seems to me the wisest way to procede within it is to aim at making changes that will stand the test of time. That usually involves some give and take. Perhaps we can start a section on what a paragraph about emergent vs. emerging would look like. That's my take anyway. I believe your input is quite valuable.--Will3935 20:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I find that the article would be much more global if the word "emerging" was used instead of "emergent". The article does not go into specifics as to what Emergent actually is and it neither expounds on the depth of the emerging church as a whole. I believe with the word change (since it’s no big deal) would at least for me and many others bring much more ownership to what you guys are adding. I lead a community of emerging believers and I am sure we are as conservative as you are theologically but calling our emerging community “emergent” would be calling us something we are not.–--71.92.100.224 06:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The title of the article is "The Emerging Church." You must be suggesting that every place the term "emergents" or "emergent Christians" is used it should be replaced with the term "emerging Christians." Am I reading you right? Would this end the question of a second article for you? If you think there is a significant difference would you not still see a need for a paragraph about the distinction some people find in the two terms? I understand if you do not want to lose your anonymity, but I am still learning about this topic and would be interested in a link to the church you lead.--Niceguy2all 07:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are reading me perfectly fine. And yes it would mean (as of late) there would be no need for a second article. Also, if the article remained as simple and broad as it is there would be no need for a separate paragraph except for a few minor changes in wording under the "Emerging Church groups also typically emphasize the following elements:" subject. However, with some work that might be a good idea to have a separate paragraph, but it would have to be distinct and thorough, actually it should probably be said somewhere.

There are a lot of Evangelicals that want to approach the emerging church but they fear the Emergent because of their deep liberalism. I actually just spoke with a fellow church planter about this subject today. As willing as he is to see church from different perspectives he fears having to change his theology is at stake. I would have to declare that is not true and that Emergent has put a bad taste in the mouth of most conservative evangelical church folk. It honestly makes me upset to hear a believer say that they have heard some weird stuff about the emerging church concerning heresy when all they really hear is what critics say about what’s written in McLaren’s books or the latest buzz from an Emergent convention. I also had a friend email me recently saying that he believes that he is the most emerging guy he knows until he flew to an Emergent convention and felt like the most conservative.

I believe that we can be part of the emerging missional church while keeping our roots where they belong according to what we believe. I can’t find anywhere in the Evangelical statement of faith how to be the church. And I can’t find anywhere that says you have to be Emergent in order to be considered emerging. And to answer you last question, I am actually the founder of http://www.theemerge.com theemerge.com online community. We have about twenty-five faithful like-minded believers that are the core part of our community. We keep a close network with the core group and reach out from there. We are still in our infant stages of community but we corporately agree that we are not Emergent and just recently released a statement of belief. Some involved go back for years and others just a few months. Nevertheless, we are willing to see God reach out within the emerging church and culturally teach us to be missionaries to those around us. --71.92.100.224 11:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Great website. Loved your statement of faith. You have really piqued my interest. It sounds like we need your contribution in the article. I hate to take your time, but I would like to hear your perspective on specifically what makes you emerging if you are not willing to compromise doctrinally or embrace postmodern epistemology. I take it that you embrace the label as it applies to your approach to evangelism, missional living, and ecclesiology, but I am uncertain what else it would involve.--Will3935 20:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

One point I would insert here is that since user 71.92 seems to represent a unique point of view, catering to him would give undue weight to his minority position. I base this on having visited many emergent/emerging sites and having read many books by emerging/emergent authors. Maybe some mention can be made of 71.92' perspective, but I question whether a radical rewrite is justified.--Loudguy 22:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a major rewrite, just a collective observation. Even though you might view my/our position as minority I know that I could find many with the same approach and thought to the emerging church. I have been viewing this article since it started I just never gave my input until the recent changes in the last week with all the aim toward the Emergent.

I feel that it is not necessary in our postmodern culture to change what we believe for the sake of a changing culture around us. However, I do think that we can change the way we believe without compromising where we stand theologically. Who says that we can’t believe absolutes in a postmodern culture? While I do not embrace postmodernism and changing because of it, I do believe that we are living in such and age and thus we are moving into a fresh way of life and culture as we know it. And in that, it changes the way we reach people for the sake of Christ living in a emerging postmodern culture, that making us "emerging". With that change in culture we are challenged to stand on some type of foundation whether Christ or culture you be the judge.

Why does being “emerging” mean that you have to compromise doctrinally or embrace postmodern epistemology. Who says that is a requirement? Emergent? I feel that the emerging church has many voices that go way beyond the Emergent. To me being “emerging” is a by-product of modern missionology in an emerging postmodern culture.

I really find agreement on the statements of "Mark Driscoll" about the emerging church, “This name has caused much confusion because there is a difference between what is Emerging and what is Emergent. First, the Emerging church is a broad category that encompasses a wide variety of churches and Christians who are seeking to be effective missionaries wherever they live. This includes Europeans and Australians who are having the same conversation as their American counterparts. The Emerging church includes three distinct types of Christians. In a conversation with Dr. "Ed Stetzer", a noted missiologist, he classified them as the Relevants, Reconstructionists, and Revisionists.”

He also says, “What ties each of these types of Emerging Christians together is a missiological conversation about what a faithful church should believe and do to reach Western culture. However, beyond that there is little unity because there is widespread disagreement on what counts as faithful doctrine and practice.”

In conclusion he declares, “In the end, I believe the conversation will result in multiple communities arriving at different conclusions and breaking off to have their own conversations, with their own Bible translations, leaders, books, magazines, websites, blogs, conferences, and model churches. That is already happening as new networks are forming and new church planting networks are establishing new churches with varying answers to the missiological questions.” [6]

I have seen many joining the conversation on a theologically conservative basis. There are many that view emerging as a way of missional living rather than a type of church or doctrine, as do I. Being “emerging” is broad and there are many that are involved with different voices. To honestly say that Emergent and Emerging are one in the same is not true. And to portray that in this article is wide of the mark, at least from our perspective… –--71.92.100.224 00:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I get what you are saying. Would it be fair to say in the article that some who identify with the term "emerging" do not embrace the more liberal theological and moral positions of those they designate as "emergent?" And would it also be fair to add that these people (such as yourself) identify with the term "emerging" largely through what it means to them in terms of contextualization, organization, missional living, and friendship evangelism? I think both you and Loudguy have points to make but I also think we can come up with something that should please all (at least I hope so). Perhaps I am naive but I think we are really close.--Will3935 02:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note the section I created further below regarding emergent vs. emerging as well as the section I added to the article. Anything we need to add?.--Will3935 05:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Karl Rahner

I initally removed the reference to Rahner because my exposure to his theology was to an aspect not common among the emergent church, that of anonymous Christians. However, in reading more about his theology, I do find some more shared characteristics with emergents and havs decided to re-include the section I deleted. Gold Dragon 13:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Dallas Willard, Tony Campolo, Brian McLaren, Steve Chalke and some others have expressed views similar to Rahner's on anonymous Christians, saying, for example, that although everyone who is saved is saved by Christ, it is not necessary to believe in Christ to be saved by him (in effect saying there are anonymous Christians). Nevertheless, you are correct that there are other similarities.--Will3935 03:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Will3935 14:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Values and Characteristics

I changed the reference to Christ-likeness which said that "Christians" sought to emulate Christ (true of all Christians and not specific enough to the movement) to "emergents seek Christ-likeness primarily through the virtues of humility and kindness. NiceGuy to all genuinely brought to light some flaws in this section and I think there are more parts to it that need work. I am also going to delete one of the entries about emergent openness to other religions since the two in this section seem redundant. I still need help on endnotes Perhaps someone can tell me in baby steps ("Press this key and you will see this. Then enter such and such info. Press this other combination of keys and you will see this on your screen. Do this..."). See my comments in a section above--Will3935 23:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There is still a lot of redundancy, ambiguity, and statements not specific enout to the movement in this section. I've done a little work on it, but I want others' input or response. Is anyone else still out there? If not, I'll substitute my article for this one (just kidding).--Will3935 03:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Life gets really busy sometimes and right now is one of those times, and probably for a few months. Often I go for months without a wikipedia edit. And then for a few days I totally rewrite huge sections of an article. I find these large breaks are helpful to see how others respond to my edits and to let the page develop a little. They are also helful to think and research about the things that I wrote and what others wrote. Often I'll go back and totally rewrite what I wrote before because it was poorly articulate or inaccurate. Anyway, keep up the work Will3935 and I'm sure I'll make major edits to your stuff and mine next time I'm inspired. :) The best way to figure out referencing is to see how others have done it. Look at my references on this article to see an example of using the template. Gold Dragon 04:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Went ahead and deleted the entry on authenticity, not because it is not an important value to emergents but because the definition was not true to emergent intent. If someone else can offer a true definition of the term please do. I may do so later. By the way, I think anonymous additions to the prominent figures section should be rejected unless such are genuinely prominent figures such as Eddie Gibbs--Will3935 22:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Getting Better?

Article looks like it is shaping up well. I find it and the links helpful.-- Niceguy2all 02:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Links

To the critical articles section, anyone who thinks the article is worthwhile may link the following: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/290-emerging-church

Emergent vs. Emerging

I am going to add a section on this topic as I understand it. If I am wrong, someone correct me. Regarding Stetzer, he is a respected authority and any lengthy conversation about EC seems to include some mention of his categories and then usually moves on, forgetting Stetzer. I think this is because trying to create too many neat categories out of EC is like trying to nail several pieces of Jello side by side to the wall. Nevertheless, I do believe some mention should be made of those who consider themselves emerging but not emergent. I was going to add a link to theemerge.com but I see it is already there. Thanks for your contribution 71.92. Do you still think we should change all the references concerning "emergents" to "emerging Christians?" As you correctly pointed out, this would not be a big deal. I doubt anyone would object.--Will3935 04:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the addition would suffice for now. Since the article is so short in itself the subtitles look fine. I do however agree that the term Emergent should be substituted with Emerging where it would actually fit but if it is not the addition is adequate. Thank you Will for your time and dialogue and I appreciate your effort to bring clarity to the emerging church article. I have read over your writings and agree that it would be a fine addition to the emerging church article. Unfortunately, it only points out the conversation related to that of the Emergent and there you see where the Evangelical gets the wrong idea of what others emerging Christians are trying to do in the midst of our culture. They only see Emergent and what the critics say about them because they are the ones making the headlines with what traditional Christianity would call heresy. I would have to agree with you on what is said in the article you wrote, I only wish that people would see the emerging church as it is with many streams and not just Emergent.–--71.92.100.224 09:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

New section looks good.--Loudguy 23:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

To Ifyourhappyandyouknowit: I understand your efforts to distance whatever ministry you are associated with from the more liberal elements. That is one reason we created this section. Your changes overstated your case and presented the difference between emerging and emergent in terms too absolute to be scholarly. I softened your changes slightly to keep them accurate. Also, an encyclopedia article should use third person rather than first person. For example "A missional identity that emphasizes the need to reach out and be "missionaries" to the culture around us." I changed "us" to "them." I see that you are brand new to Wikipedia and are unaware of general protocol. Everyone is at first. Making sweeping changes without first discussing them on this page is rather discouraged. It's good to get your input, though. I especially liked the fact that you moved this section up toward the top to clarify this distinction early in the article. This little article is the result of the hammering away of many hands and you have helped to improve it.--Will3935 20:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

First 71.92 wants to change "emergent" to "emerging". Now ifyourhappyandyouknowit wants to change "emerging" to "emergent." Is there any end to this? Maybe we should compromise on "emergenting" or "emergingent." I've looked throught the history of discussion on this page and "happy" is the first one to suggest this change. Not only this, he or she makes the change in their first day at Wikipedia. Message to ifyourhappyandyouknowit -- We are a community here. Another thought -- Does it seem to anyone else that the opening paragraph now looks too brief compared to the other parts of the article? Maybe it's just me.--Loudguy 23:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the opening paragraph, but personally, I am willing to live with it. It seems every minor change becomes a war zone on this topic.--Will3935 01:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the opening paragraph, though it does seem to be a good definition. Like Will, I'm willing to live with it. --Derek Spalla 02:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I can’t see where Ifyourhappyandyouknowit wanted to change the terms from Emergent to emerging. To me it looks like he/she wanted to make a distinction between the two. Seemed like they were more emerging oriented than Emergent voiced changes anyhow. Nevertheless, the terms will always mess with people’s minds until it’s a separate article. It will always be a war zone until the separation because many emerging believers don't want to be considered Emergent.–--71.92.100.224 09:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear from you 71.92 (you ought to get a username). Hope you got my email to your website (I couldn't get a timely response from the Acts 29 Network but I've submitted those changes I talked to you about in that email). It seems to me that in spite of emotions running a little high, there is not as much difference of opinion on making the distinction as there is difference of understanding as to how large the emerging but not emergent element is. I must confess that as I have studied the movement I have come away with the impression that the "emergent" element dominates and the element you are part of represents a smaller reformation of sorts within the movement. Furthermore, I think it is indisputable that the two terms are essentially synonymous in popular understanding. If this is so it should be noted in an Encyclopedia article. Encyclopedia articles are places for informing about facts, not for addressing grievances, however valid they may be. Certainly we should also inform about those who distinguish between the two terms. I guess I thought we had done that but it seems that the real issue still unresolved is how big the emerging but not emergent segment is compared to the emerging and emergent segment. You have been helpful in the past. Perhaps you can help us on this issue of how comparatively large this emerging but not emergent segment is. By the way, I think Loudguy was right in a way about "happy." He/she tried to change all "emerging" references to "emergent," which seems the opposite of what you had suggested. Nevertheless, I understand that both of you were motivated by similar concerns. Also, I will take your word for it if you think JOK is really that prominent of a figure. I was the one who removed him from the list (even though I find him to be a pleasant person and I left his blog linked to the article) because the Prominent Figures list was getting unreasonably long. Gold Dragon [pro-EC] agreed with me on this and we were trying to whittle it down to size. I added Tony Jones and Eddie Gibbs because I do think of them as prominent figures (I also think Derek was right to add Rob Bell). I also added Grenz and Hauerwas because I think their theological influence on EC far outweighs that of any blog. Someone else deleted Dallas Willard along the way and I more or less understand that deletion since Willard is hard to classify. I still think Nancy Murphy's early influence on EC is a glaring omission, but just how long can the list be? Gold Dragon had suggested that we might create a separate page just for the names of prominent figures if the list continues to grow unchecked. That is always a possibility. --Will3935 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Will, as I have looked more into this, it seems that one problem is that what 71.92 calls the "emergent stream" call themselves "emerging" as well as "emergent." People like McLaren seem to have the most powerful voices in this movement and they are the ones driving the definition of terms. Perhaps 71.92 and others should come up with a new term to distinguish themselves from McLaren and company.--Niceguy2all 21:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point.--Will3935 00:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine...looks like I've waisted my time–--71.92.100.224 18:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. You helped a lot and your contributions were valuable.--Will3935 05:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that there is a portion of the emerging church does not idenify with emergentvillage and those they label as "Emergent", the size and distinction of that group is small enough that it does not warrant its own article. Their definition and distinction of the terms emergent and emerging are not shared with many others and should not dominate their use in this article. I feel the current paragraph is adequte if not too large for this minority opinion. Gold Dragon 03:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Proper Orginization and Format

Whoever added Rob Bell to the prominent figures: I totally agree with the entry. I had to change the wording slightly to keep the format consistent. I hope you don't mind, but I moved him a little lower on the list. The list is supposed to represent some vague order of prominence. I think McLaren belongs on top of the list. Also deleted your entry of Crouch's article since it is already listed in the favorable articles lower in the article. Otherwise, your input was good.--Will3935 04:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Will,

I added Rob Bell and the Mars Hill Bible Church link. I agree that he needed to be here. I also agree that McLaren should be at the top of the list; thanks for the edit. I overlooked the fact that Crouch's article was already listed, sorry for the duplication. I'll be sure to discuss any content changes here first before I edit. --Derek Spalla 11:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Derek Spalla

African Emergents?

I'm a little disturbed by the statement in the section titled 'Membership, Ecclesiology and Structure' where it says that: 'Emergent Christians, or emergents, are predominantly found in North America, Western Europe and the South Pacific'. The Emergent Conversation is raging in South Africa, and certainly spreading to the rest of Africa, where we are also dealing with issues pertaining to post-colonialism, for example. See the Emergent Africa site (http://www.emergentafrica.com), the major African-Emergent conversation to take place in Uganda in April, 2007 (http://amahoro.info) and such South African/Australian writers such as Alan Hirsch ('The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21 Century Church'). Can this article perhaps reflect some of the issues arising out of the African Emergent conversation, such as the before mentioned issue of post-colonialism which has majorly impacted on the church in Africa and on how to be Christian outside of western, modernist ways of thinking...

You raise a valid deficiency that I have noticed myself about this article. The emerging movement is alive and well in Africa. The only disagreements I have with your characterizations of it (although I know you are not alone in this) is the association of conservative Evangelical theology with colonialism and modernist thought. These themes have been repeated so often by emergent leaders it almost sounds incredible to question them, but not only do I question them I differ with them. Colonialism was a terrible thing, but rejection of colonialism does not necessitate a rejection of epistemological foundationalism or the correspondence theory of truth. Nor does it necessitate a rejection of the blood atonement or an embracing of religious pluralism. The constant cry that Evangelicals are bound to modernist thought is, in my opinion, absurd. Evangelicals rejected the strict empiricism that liberals embraced. Nevertheless, your statement that the movement's presence in Africa has been overlooked in this little article is quite valid and should be remedied. How do you think it should be worded? By the way, if you have not yet read Kwabena Donkor's evaluation of the emerging church movement in Africa, you may want to do so. He expresses legitimate reservations about the movement's influence on the continent.--Will3935 07:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I added Africa to the list it should have been on. Please help us if there is further information we should add.--Will3935 05:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm in dialogue with others in the African conversation to see what they say regards adding anything else, but it's good to see Africa on there! -Cori