User talk:Bromaynard

Missional Living

I'm not sure what is causing the delay in moving the article from "Missional Christianity" to "Missional Living." I made the request under non-controversial proposals and I don't think there has been an objection. I am not that worried about it, however. If you type in a search for "Missional living" you will be redirected to "Missional Christianity." Nevertheless, if you wish to pursue the move further and seek to expidite this I will support you.Will3935 04:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The prominent critics and prominent figures lists have been moved. I'll do a little clean up. Below I've pasted a comment I left for you on the article talk page (feel free to delete it from your page after reading):

An admin was gracious enough to move both lists (leaders and critics). Reflecting on your thoughts a little Maynard it seems to me that one of the problems we had in addressing the issue of prominence is that prominence in itself is not an emergent value. An emergent perspective would prefer to speak of the perceived value of emergents participation. Prominence, however, is a more objective, somewhat quantifiable, more modern concern (thus the name of the list in a modern venue such as an encyclopedia). I fully agree with your comments about African contexts vs. Western contexts, the problem I was having that the last time I looked at a map Canada was in the West (just north of America). Thus, I think it reasonable to use similar measurements of prominence in the Canadian and American contexts. The quality of Pernell and company's contributions may far outweigh that of any American. Nevertheless, quality is hard to measure in an objective reference tool. Certainly African contributors' prominence would be measured on a different scale than used in the West. Sadly though, few Africans have contributed to this article in spite of the fact that the emerging church movement is a significant factor on the continent. I believe I really do understand where you are coming from but I stand by my insistence that Goodyear et. al. are not prominent by Western standards regardless of how valuable they are.Will3935 19:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, that was easy since someone did it for us. I thanked him/her on my userpage but I will do so on his/her's as well.Will3935 19:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missional Christianity was finally moved to Missional Living.Will3935 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Points are Valid

Maynard: You make some valid points on the EC talk page. I have again pasted my comments there on your page here:

Your points are well made. Still, I cannot help but wonder if Canada does not have more prominent figures in the emerging conversation. Again, this is not to question the value of anyone's contribution. Also, I have asked the admin who asked for citations in the list for a clarification. I suspect some contributors will interpret this as a license to link blogs which I doubt was his/her intent. If I read Wikipedia standards correctly, the request for citations in this list is looking for sources outside of the individuals and their close friends that recognize the notoriety of the person listed. Generally such a confirmation involves newspaper, television, or magazine coverage of a person whose impact on the surrounding world has gained public attention. Given the nature of the emerging church movement, I doubt there will be many people who meet that criteria. This is not a value judgment against emergent, it is a recognition of its general lack of top-heavy structure. I think a close analogy would be to develop a list of prominent figures in the high-protein diet movement. While there are certainly some high profile authors and perhaps even clinics that could be referred to, most of the practitioners would fail to meet any standard of prominence. This does not negate the value of their participation; it just recognizes the fact that their value does not come from their prominence. This is a very weak analogy but I think you may see what my point is.Will3935 10:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I look forward to your input on the EC article. I think the section which needs the most immediate help is the one that speaks of related movements. I think it is a valuable seed bed of thought which still remains to be organized into an articulate discussion. I believe it is potentially the most important section in the article even though I find its current state somewhat embarassing due its loose structure. I think some real development of this section along with some pertinent photos pasted in the article will do wonders for it.Will3935 10:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]