Talk:Emerging church

Archives: Past Discussion

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)

• Talk:Emerging Church/Misc Discussion

• Talk:Emerging Church/Introduction 1
• Introduction 1: The information provided on the Emerging Church is challenged and disputed. The issues are addressed in the Emerging Church/Introduction 2.

• Talk:Emerging Church/Introduction 2
• Introduction 2: Discussion focuses on the EC movement vs. conversation, being an "incipient movement," having a "bible-based theology," protestant origins, citing sources, being primarily an english speaking occurrence, etc. The article is long so it has been archived. Also, we want to move towards proposing alternative descriptions. See current discussion on the Emerging Church.

• Talk:Emerging Church/Introduction 3: Proposed Introduction
• Introduction 3: Proposed introduction and discussion. Changes were made on 6/6/05 to replace the old intro with the proposed intro.

Ecclesiology

Added section on Ecclesiology of the Emerging Church. I have tried desperately to make it sound NPOV, but there may be those who disagree with me. Please feel free to fix what you consider flawed (as if, this being Wikipedia, you actually needed my permission). Also, if I am completely wrong and there is some good information on ecclesiology in the Emerging Church, please direct me to it. I have been trying for some time to find this information, but I can only find scraps at best.

--WestonWyse 20:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This section has been pared down to two (completely un-wikified) sentences that have nearly nothing to do with the heading, with no explanation of why (unless the "decentralized nature" of the ECM -- which is what its leaders claim -- and the lack of a unified ecclesiological doctrine -- which simply is the truth -- was considered POV for some odd reason). At risk of being blamed for a revert war, I am making the Ecclesiology section once again actually be about Ecclesiology, not simply another sentence that should be moved to "Structure". --WestonWyse 02:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ecclesiology encompasses both the role and nature of the church; it's the theology and philosophy of what "the church" is. We probably shouldn't hide a link to ecclesiology behind either word. Make sense? Wesley 00:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I was using "role" more all-encompasingly than that, but I see your point. In this case, however, you shouldn't stop at just role and nature (as I think you are using "nature" as I was using "role"), as it still means more than that. --WestonWyse 14:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

---

i am consolidating some thoughts on "deep ecclesiology" over the next week that will be a good resource to link to and will be backed up by emerging church leaders in various countries. I will make sure it meets the standard here. thanks guys for your work. tallskinnykiwi

"Who is 'emergent'"

Does anyone else feel that the "Who is 'emergent'" section is just a re-hashing of the "Structure and Commonality" section? And slightly POV? I'll ask and see if anyone has objections before I do so, but it really seems that the two sections should be merged. Or at least "Who is" should be made to seem a little less like an advert, because ATM it reads more like a sales brochure than an encyclopedia article. --WestonWyse 05:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There were no objections, so I've rolled the information into the "S&C" section. Most of the content was about what the "lower" levels of churches are not instead of what they are, so there was very little to add. --WestonWyse 22:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Body (Outline)

In an effort to conform to a higher standard of article quality, I would like to propose a restructure on the present article. Please let us know what you think about the outline. If you would like to contribute to writing a portion, please propose a paragraph for the section. Thank you everyone for your involvement! I know it will take some time but its well worth the effort.

Background (One Paragraph Each)

Could be left as Historical Context. Background is a bit more broad. One paragraph could be written on the following sections:

• Pre-Emerging Church

At a minimum, Gen X churches and Alt.Worship could be briefly addressed. What were the first expression of the Emerging Church? (Hard because we know the EC expresses itself differently depending on context.)

• Discontent with modern Protestantism, Christianity, and/or the Church

Though it is not true of all EC expression, we must address the portions of the EC which are discontented with modern protestantism, christianity, and/or the Church. Would be insightful.

• The influence and suspicion of Postmodernism

A common critique of the emerging church is its relationship with "postmodernism." This section would address the influences and suspicions of the EC towards postmodernism.

• New Media and the Emerging Church

I ponder if the EC would even be possible without the advent of new online media. What has been the role of the internet, new media, social networks, etc. in the EC phenomenon? I argue an important role.

• Emerging Church as Conversation or Movement

Since we seem to be caught up in Emerging Church/Introduction 2 Discussion on the labels, conversation and movement we should address the EC as both.

Distinguishing Characteristics and Differences

This is the structure and commonality section. Structure does not work since arguably the EC could be considered a poststructural and self-organizing system. Rather, it would be more insightful to discuss the common characteristics and the differences in emerging churches globally.

Central Beliefs

Desiring to address ecclesiology is a step in the right direction. Let's take it a step further with the following sections w/ a paragraph on each:

• Theological Developments

Address ecclesiology, missiology, and general theology. We cannot draw conclusions but we can discuss the theological conversations underway.

• Praxis

This will range and depend on context. It should also address the EC in its most elementary of forms -a stylized approached to church and evangelism (at least in the U.S.) and a change in methodology. A deeper sense of the EC would be its theological inquiring and reformation of modern Christianity.

Bibliography Long ago, I provided the current Biblio but maybe that should be a reading list instead. The Biblio should be the sources used to legitimize the article.

Also, notice I didn't mention emerging church links and voices/leaders section. I think those should be removed. Seems a bit self-promoting. We can include some links to some lists already online. Please leave your comments. --Artisan949 18:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You could just spin them off into, say, List of Emerging Church Websites and List of Emerging Church Leaders. --WestonWyse 16:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back Weston. Good suggestion. The problem is the list are becoming larger and larger because people come and add their names to the list to generate traffic to their sites. Nor do I see the lists necessarily encyclopedic. Agree? --Artisan949 04:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WestonWyse, I went ahead and took your suggestion. Got any others? --Artisan949 07:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm new to MediaWiki - but have used MoinMoin quite a bit. Saw the wikify link - and looking around found Introductory paragraphs should precede sections; in particular, they should not be in an ==Introduction== section of their own. The table of contents will automatically follow the introduction, preceding the first named section. - So I went ahead and removed wikify and the Introduction header, so that it follows the standard layout. AFTER I did that I found this page with discussions. Hopefully it was cool that I did that, just trying to help. :) From now on will use the discuss to suggest changes... --JamesJWagner 9 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)

No worries James. Thanks for the change. It looks good. --Artisan949 03:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Historical Content Changes

Proponents of the emergent movement contend that Western Christianity was influenced significantly over the last few centuries by Modernism...

The edit would be OK if you could please provide which proponents in the emerging church are suggesting this. That would be helpful. Because the article is being disputed, maybe all changes should be discussed here. If you cannot explain the change, maybe it should be reverted back. Thank you. --Artisan949 June 2, 19:30

i'm not sure i agree with much of what you are expressing. it seems to me that you would like to be the "expert" in this matter (WestonWyse) and the reason i say this is because when ever i check back here for discussion, much of those who disagree with you have been removed. this causes me great concern. this conversation is not one voice, it is many - some loud, some soft - but when i see people's voices being removed because they disagree with you i am hurt. i tend to see this as very undefinable, and if you strive to define it, it is no longer emerging, it is what you think emerging must be and i think we are so beyond that - now, if i am reading you wrong, i am very willing to stand back and take notice - but i do have to say, that when i posted disagreements with you, they are removed and never addressed. ginkworld

Hello Ginkworld. Westonwyse didn't do the last revert, I did. As such, I hope you didn't mean to address me. Westonwyse "took care of" this article for some time but has been MIA for a few weeks. There was a revert war going on for sometime and Westonwyse did seem to control things here. Since then, we have been able to slowly move forward with this article paying careful attention to Wikipedia's policies for its articles. The last revert under historical content was changed back because there was no source cited. It was very hard to verify. After no one added anything to the discussion, it was reverted back. Also, I hope I am not seen as the controller of this article now. I am simply attempting to facilitate an effort to develop a supported and verifiable article on the EC here at Wikipedia. Since it is such a reference point, I think it deserves to be treated as such. If you were referring to me and not Westonyse, my sincere apologies and thanks for your recent additions. -- Artisan949 15:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

artisan, very cool, i can live with that. i am just so very concerned that while we "give guidance" we do not "define" the emerging as "this." it seemed that so wanted to do that, and do it in connection to what they felt "it must be." so, if that is not the goal, and all voices are still welcomed i say let's get moving on this :). i added noting to the "histroy section" (not that i know of) but did comment on this section throughout - then when i checked back, they were all deleted (in fact all but "westonwyse" comments were removed at one time - that freaked me). but if all voices can be expressed and all minds linked i am cool with this - i just want even the edges to be expressed :) ginkworld 09:50, 15 Jun 2005 (PST)

Reverted back for lack of discussion. --Artisan949 00:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Introduction Changes

Some ecclesial scholars and thinkers affirm the conversation had become a movement; while others argued the Emerging Church is still a conversation because there is no centeral leadership and no "one" set of doctrines, guidlines, rules or mandates. They see the emerging church as a "gathering in conversation."

Thanks ginkworld for this change. Do we think we can turn this argument (conversation vs. movement) into its own section. In the proposed body, I pitched a section addressing this issue rather than addressing it in the introduction. I fear someone who come and write why they think or do no think it is either a convo or a movement in the intro and we will have a convo/movement war happening again. I think the best way to approach this is to present the argument in its own section and revert the intro back (or at least clean up the wording a bit). Would you be willing to present a case with sources for convo? I just ordered some books on the sociology of religion which will help us cite sources for movement. BTW: I am for EC as convo but am suspending my biases so please keep me accountable.  :)

Because we move kindda slow here, I just made some changes to the wording, but kept the context of the change. Of course its evolving and I'm no say all, so please feel free to improve what I've done.-artisan949

The Influence and Suspicion of Postmodernism

Western Christianity was influenced significantly over the last few centuries by Modernism in the sense that it sought to take the individual narratives of the Bible and from them extract a set of underlying truths or meta-narratives. Using methods borrowed from scientific reductionism it was hoped that a grand truth and worldview would be attained. In practice, the modernist approach led to additional schism within the Church.

Some church leaders, responding to postmodernism, in turn, encouraged followers to deconstruct each element of their faith experience, and reassemble the pieces in light of his or her own unique journey through this deconstruction process.

Can sombody help me verify this? I removed this so we could get rid of the factual accuracy dispute.--Artisan949 06:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Distinguishing Characteristics and Differences

While there is no single coordinated organization behind the emerging church globally, many church leaders and thinkers have written books, articles and/or blogs on the subject. Emerging Church groups typically contain some or all of the following elements:

• Highly creative approaches to worship and spiritual reflection, as compared to many American churches in recent years. This can involve everything from the use of contemporary music and films through to liturgy or other more ancient customs.
• A minimalist and decentralized organizational structure, somewhat "nonlinear."
• A flexible approach to theology whereby individual differences in belief and morality are accepted within reason.
• A holistic view of the role of the church in society. This can mean anything from greater emphasis on fellowship in the structure of the group to a higher degree of emphasis on social action, community building or Christian outreach; missional in it's core.
• A desire to reanalyze the Bible against the context with the goal of revealing a multiplicity of valid perspectives rather than a single valid interpretation
• A continual re-examination of theology, and a willingness to push the edge.
• A high value placed on creating communities built out of the creativity of those who are a part of each local body.
• A view of "leadership" as more "servant" and less "leader." Church leaders are seen as more poet and painter and far less CEO or COO.

In common with the House church movement, the Emerging Church is challenging traditional notions of how the Church should be organized.

Another section that needs to be cited. Does anyone know of material that supports these characteristics? Removed until we can verify so we can have factual accuracy. --Artisan949 06:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ecclesiology

Because of the decentralized nature of the Emerging Church, as with many areas of doctrine, there is not a mutually agreed upon doctrine of ecclesiology -- a theology of the church, its role, nature, origin, and leadership. The emerging church claims its role to be continuing the mission of Christ, but there does not appear to be a unified stance on what role the church as a body plays in that mission.

Again, we need to verify and cite sources for factual accuracy. Also this paragraph doesn't say much except the emerging has no ecclesiology. Let's work on something better. Anyone want to contribute?--Artisan949 07:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

External links

I've removed the links to Emerging Church Blogs, Emerging Church Sites, and Examples of Emerging Churches, since those pages contained nothing but external links, which is not appropriate since Wikipedia is not a web directory. Angela. 07:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Angela. I had wanted to do that myself but others recommended starting another page and I thought that was an OK work around. But now that its been removed and after looking at other wikipedia articles, I do not think we should external links at all. Thanks again. --Artisan949 15:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Characteristics Revert

Sometimes criticized for lacking in evangelistic fervor, many emerging churches seek to demonstrate the way of Jesus by living as compassionate communities. This approach reflects a desire to distance the church from the advertising-soaked culture of modernity.

Thank you to whomever added this. Do you have a source because Ref 6 says nothing of the sort? "Advertsing-soaked culture" could also be true of postmodernity. No? Does the article already say something about the ec and consumerism (intro)? --Artisan949 30 June 2005 06:55 (UTC)

"Current event"?

I don't think this article discusses a "current event" in the way that template is usually used. Anyone mind if I remove it? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 2 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

Seemed appropriate so reverted back though the articles also needs to eventually wikified. --Artisan949 4 July 2005 17:38 (UTC)

The current event tag is for articles covering stories that are currently in the news, the sorts of things found under In the news on Main Page, for example: Deep Impact (space mission) or German federal election, 2005. This article is not about a current event in that sense, so I've removed the tag again. It does really need to be wikified, so I restored that tag. Also, the {{controversial}} tag belongs on the talk page (where it alrady is), not the main article page. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 4 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)

The revert is fine. However, the emerging church is a current event in religious news. Also, the ""CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC - please read the talk page discussion before making substantial changes"" tag can be placed on the main article page per wikipedia policy as a work around. Template:List of controversial issues. No worries though. I don't think its pertinent to this article's development. Thanks for the suggestions and improvements. --Artisan949 5 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)

Why a cleanup tag is needed

A cleanup tag should be on this page to draw attention to needed improvements in the tone and language of this article. Indeed, the first 'sentence' ("The emerging church developed from the late 20th Century into the 21st Century as a conversation in Western Europe, North America, and the South Pacific concerned with the deconstruction and reconstruction of protestant Christianity. Its development stemmed from a mix of a lack of growth in protestant churches, particularly amongst Generation X; concern over how the Church would adopt to postmodernity; opposition to fundamentalist doctrines and practices in the modern church; a neglect of ancient Christian tradition and practices; the need for an ecumenical, catholic Church; and increasing suspicion of the missiology of the market-driven, mega-church, and institutionalized Christianity.") is no way to begin an encyclopedia article. Readers will come to this page to find out about the Emerging Church. Therefore, the article should be immediately informative (or at least not start with a very long sentence). After the introductory bit, the article begins this way: "Postmodernity set the cultural context for the emerging church occurrence in the global West and influenced emerging church thought. Through his work, Stanley Grenz (1950-2005), Author of Primer on Postmodernism, urged the emerging church in its postmodern context and conditioning to personify the Christian gospel with a post-individualistic, post-rationalistic, post-dualistic, and post-noeticentric attitude." In addition to having no wikilinks, these sentences confuse more than inform. I could go one (for instance, why are these sentences: "Hence, the fusion of old and new media often brought a sense of community and connection to the emerging church. The advent of new media allowed the emerging church to exist in virtual, online forms. Internet churches, individual and community blogs, online message boards, and wikis often built new media relationships through on-going conversation about life, spirituality, and the church." in the past tense?), but I won't. -Acjelen 21:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the critique though your opinion does little to improve the article itself (especially the last sentence and tone). Please propose in this discussion a cleaned up version of the problematic parts for you. Would:

::The emerging church developed from the late 20th Century into the 21st Century as a conversation in Western Europe, North America, and the South Pacific. Concerned with the deconstruction and reconstruction of protestant Christianity, its development stemmed from a mix of a lack of growth in protestant churches, particularly amongst Generation X; concern over how the Church would adopt to postmodernity; opposition to fundamentalist doctrines and practices in the modern church; a neglect of ancient Christian tradition and practices; the need for an ecumenical, catholic Church; and increasing suspicion of the missiology of the market-driven, mega-church, and institutionalized Christianity.

No, that will not do. That still sounds like a college paper, which I suspect this article is taken from nearly verbatim. The readership of a general encyclopedia and a college essay will be different and require changes to language and structure. First of all, the emerging church is not a conversation, it is a way that some people express their Christianity. It is the style and substance of worship and Christian practice. It is contemporary. We do not need to tell readers that contemporary stems from the late 20th century into the 21 century as they were there. There isn't enough room on WP to talk about other authors talking about the subject. Encyclopedia articles require crisp, clean sentences. If you want to provide references, list them at the bottom of the page. State the case. If an editor goes out on a limb, other editors will reel things in again. -Acjelen 22:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If it is a matter of structure then it is easy to clean. I apologize for the confusion but the emerging church topic is complex and controversial making it very hard to pinpoint, describe, define, etc. Also the article is still being worked on as we speak, so what appears where and the order of information could change. Again, thanks for your opinion. Please provide something more than criticism to help this article be what it needs to be. Thanks!!! -Artisan949 10:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Acjelen. Definitely it needs a clean terse intro. Something like:

The emerging church is a term for a diffuse movement, that arose in the late 20th century in Western Europe, North America and the South Pacific, concerned with the deconstruction and reconstruction of Protestant Christianity into forms adapted to a postmodern cultural context.

I agree also that the article in general comes across as rather confused and pseudy, and in need of a severe copyedit. It would help if it were not being kept on such a tight editorial leash: a few editors working on the Be Bold principle would work wonders. Tearlach 22:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

"The tight editorial leash" is a result of a revert war and vandalism to this article. We've decided to discuss major edits on the talk page. No ONE person is holding the leash, though so please feel free to contribute. --Artisan949 16:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agreed! This article rates zero in terms of readability. Your intro was great Tearlach. Put it up! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I concur. I tried several times to write an introduction, but remained disappointed. I would make it "The emerging church is a diffuse movement that arose in the late ..." to make it even more focused on the emerging church and not the term and to remove the unnecessary comma. -Acjelen 01:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Just a quik thank you to those who have added recently to the work we've been doing here. Appreciate the edits much. I did change the intro to reflect more of what was orginally there since recently (see this talk page) we had a lengthy discussion about the intro and what it should say. --Artisan949 16:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Quality of references

Check out Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Many of the current references don't look very good by encyclopedic standards. I appreciate that online discussion, and especially the blog circuit, is a significant medium in which the emerging church operates. Trouble is, Wikipedia doesn't much rate sources that are basically personal viewpoints on blogs.

Obscurity is another problem. I think it's worth checking out the plenty of clear and accessible online explanations of the emerging church. See, for instance, this DA Carson article, The Emerging Church. Or this PBS special (Part 1, Part 2) which has a wealth of further references. Or The Emergent Mystique from Christianity Today. Aaron Flores' graduate thesis (referenced here) looks interesting.

That splurge of sources at the top of Emerging Church#References needs wikifying and liposuction too. Tearlach 04:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Good points. That is a huge problem because some of the best EC sources are online in new media (though not all are credible). The ones listed are credible, however. For some of the sources, we could substitue something from paper. This would not be difficult to do. Also, lipoed the first reference. (BTW: I am Aaron Flores) --Artisan949 16:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Introduction Concerns

Primarily the problems with the suggested intro were: 1) If we are going to talk about the EC as a 20th century occurrence, then we must say it was a conversation. It was not until recently that "movement" is becoming more vastly used (mainly by critics). If you would like to work that into the intro, that would be fine. However, the conversation or movement paragraph was added so the intro would not be as argued on this point. 2) The global EC is not primarily concerned with form or methodology so this was deleted and is not supported by sources. Please provide where you are getting your information. We have also discussed that point at length recently on this talk page. Again, thanks for all the edits!!! The article looks better indeed. --Artisan949 03:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I liked Tearlach's introduction from his edit dated 01:12 26 July 2005. You changed it, citing your concerns over the word movement, but altered more than that. I tried to address your concerns in my edit dated 16:47 26 July 2005. There are a couple of reasons I prefer Tearlach's opening. Firstly, it is in the present tense. The Emerging Church exists today and we should begin our article that way. Secondly, century is not capitalized in a phrase "20th century". Thirdly, "arising in the late 20th Century into the 21st Century" is very awkward. Fourthly, Tearlach's introduction brings up postmodernism right away, which I think is important. -Acjelen 03:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Just a question: Who was the "conversation" between? Shouldn't the intro make that clear? It could be two guys in Timbuktu! ;) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 10:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Konrad -- you will soon find that word "conversation" has escoteric meaning in certain EC circles, and Artisan949 will insist on using it in this non-standard fashion without being able to define what it is that he means. It apparently makes perfect sense to him this way, and beyond that there is something very important about using this specific word. No other words will do, it has to be "conversation". As an outsider looking in it is quite puzzling. I will make some edits now to attempt to clarify what I think he means, but not being a true believer, I'm not sure I can speak EC truth. technopilgrim 20:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks technopilgrim. Your edit makes more sense, but it's still a bit strange. Wouldn't it be more clear to replace "conversation" with what it means, and then introduce the term "conversation" later on as an EC term? As it stands, the reader realises that "conversation" is an EC term, but still has no idea what it means. I'm not trying to stir up controversy (God no!) but I strongly believe that articles should be readable and understandable by the casual reader. (Thanks Tearlach for your postmodern wiki link!) :) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 23:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

technopilgrim, I appreciate you speaking on my behalf but I am not married to EC as solely a conversation. I seek for this article to be as unbiased as possible. At any rate, to say that the EC exist solely as a movement, but others call it a conversation (EC terminology) is poor. Rather, I think this is more NPOV, "The emerging church or emergent church is considered a movement and conversation which arose in the late 20th century in Western Europe, North America, and the South Pacific. The emerging church is concerned with the deconstruction and reconstruction of Protestant Christianity in a postmodern cultural context." I do not agree with an intro that is biased towards one or the other. Fair? --Artisan949 08:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Terminology: "conversation" or "movement"?

Reason for trims: a) unnecessarily long b) fallacious line of argument. "Movement", as the lengthy discussions have shown, is a very fuzzy concept whose definition people disagree about. Yet the section pulled out of a hat a rather precise personal definition, from a private communication with a single theologian, and presented it as general fact: the specific meaning of "movement" within the context of modern Protestant theology. Tearlach 04:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Tearlach, I have appreciated your company here and your additions. Conversation or Movement section was created to provide in what ways EC qualifies as either or. There was no line of argument and the sources provided are quality sources. What you have provided may be biased towards EC as movement. Did you feel it was biased towards conversation? Additionally, no where did the section attribute the meaning of movement to all of Protestant theology (and I am unaware of a theology of movements in protestanism). Also, the link to Christianity Today is not as reliable as the other sources (though I am open to removing the email correspondence on terms of dubious sources). Constantly I have argued that we must present sources on why EC is movement or conversation or both. Because it is impossible to prove that it is either or, as fair treatment, we should include sources that label the EC movement and sources which label it a conversation. It is confusing why we seem to focus on this topic when there are other aspects of the article, yet to be developed, needing attention. I would prefer a handful of wikipedians seeking to add to non-exisiting parts of the article and cleaning existing parts, rather than those who (including myself) argue these topics to endless exhaustion. Please accept my revert as we discuss this significant and major change to this article. Thank you! --Artisan949 08:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of the work needed. This article doesn't need selective little vetted edits and certainly doesn't need addition at this stage: it's a chunk of jargon-ridden academic-speak that needs ruthless pruning.

It's not going to develop if you impede every edit. I appreciate that you have a particular specialist insight, but I think you should ponder whether you've drifted into a situation as described in Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Frankly, I think that it is the problem here, not controversy or complexity of the topic. Tearlach 10:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tearlach as I'm sure any experienced Wikipedian would. Artisan949, you need to let those with more experience, clearer thinking ability, and better writing skills improve this article. Sorry to put it to you so bluntly, but that's what we're talking about. I'm reverting your unwarranted revert.technopilgrim 01:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

technopilgrim and Tearlach, thanks for your honest opinion and criticism on my work here at Wikipedia and specifically on this article. I'm not personally aware that I have necessarily denied anyone with "more experience, clearer thinking ability, and/or better writing skills" the opportunity to participate in the improvement of this article. If that is what I have done, my sincere apology. I, along with others throughout the last few months, have worked hard at fine tuning a NPOV article, prevent vandalism, encourage discussion, and seek to develop a decent (though not perfect or cemented) article on the Emerging Church. As for it being "a chunk of jargon-ridden academic-speak that needs ruthless pruning," I have used other wikipedia articles as a template for this one. Nevertheless, if you feel that the "chunk" of an article could be simplified for the academically challenged, I would encourage you to take that role and you both may be more suited for creating such a work. I do come with an academic, researched background, and that may be my weakness.

Just recently, I have read many comments on this article. Some believing it is a step in the right direction. Despite this, I will be stepping away from further developing this article so that others, like yourselves, might add their own opinion to it. I will also not participate in a revert war or an argument about EC conversation or movement. Frankly, I lack the concern. technopilgrim, in the past, revert wars on this article have been attributed to you. I do not necessarily know what you contribute except antagonism and disregard, but this no longer concerns me.

What does concern me and will continue to do so, is the quality of articles at wikipedia. I do not necessarily know if biases create the best wikipedia articles and misinformation clearly articulates or describe what something is. Nevertheless, I am not sure the two of you have any regard. I will not be returning for some time, so any messages can be sent to my email at aaron @ thevoiz dot com. My utmost respect. --Artisan949 04:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I can't pretend that this doesn't make things easier. But I also think it's an unnecessary reaction. I've no interest in imposing a bias: my only problem with the article itself is that it's written in a 'house style' appropriate for a dissertation rather than an encyclopedia for general readership. Tearlach 10:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, the previous revert war you had was with WestonWyse and others, not myself. If you check the article history you will see that I have only made two edits prior to yesterday's reversion, neither of which was a revert. technopilgrim 19:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm putting this in the right place, but after reading the article and skimming some of the talk archives, as well as reading this talk page, I'm mystified as to what "conversation" means in this article. I read earlier on the talk page that it has some esoteric meaning within the emerging church, but as a plain ole encyclopedia article reader who was wholly ignorant on the subject before reading this article, I'd sure like to have a definition there, or else plainer language. KathL 09:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Two comments: I think we need to list some of Brian McLaren's books in the References, and also provide a link to emergentvillage somewhere in the article (and possibly a whole section on emergent). They're major players and I think people who want to get familiar with the Emerging Church should be familiar with them.andryia 02:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization

The article is named Emerging Church with a capital C (the capital E is inevitable), but the text pretty consistently refers to the emerging church with lower-case letters. Normally this sort of thing would be capitalized (Roman Catholic Church, Episcopal Church, Lutheran Church, etc.). Does the E/emerging C/church have a policy that its name is to be written lowercase (like k.d. lang), or is this just sloppy editing? If the former, the article should be moved to emerging church (with a note explaining that the e should be lowercase); if the latter, then we need to go through the article and capitalize it correctly. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 14:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

If you read the article you will notice that the E/emerging C/church is a movement. It is not an organization or a denomination. So the capitalization is not really an issue. There is no governing body to state whether it should be capitalized or not, so it's pretty much up to each person's discretion. I'm sure no one would have a problem if you went through and changed them all one way or the other.Icj tlc 17:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I'd say it should be capitalized. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 18:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd say go by predominant usage. A skim of Google hits supports lower case: sites for those involved use it - eg [1], [2] - as does this mainstream PBS news feature. I get a slight impression that the capitalised form is used by its critics - for instance, [3] and [4] - so opting for that isn't entirely value-free. Tearlach 18:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, before I saw your message I already did it. You can change it back, though. I also changed the word "missional" to "missionary" (except in a direct quote) because I don't see what "missional" is supposed to mean that "missionary" doesn't mean. I also changed "postmodernism" to "postmodernity" (except in the title of a source and the category) because having read postmodernism and postmodernity it seemed to me the latter is more what's intended here. Again, you can change it back if that was a bad move. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 18:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

OK: I restored the lower case. I agree about "postmodernity". "Missional" does have a specific meaning, which needs somehow defining - see The Missional Church and Missional Communities for a couple of descriptions. Tearlach 19:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Shall we move the article to Emerging church then, too? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Eurgh. I suppose yes, with a technical limitation note, like K.d. lang. Tearlach 02:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Although I was the one who brought it up, I'm now skeptical about the need for the technical limitation note. If there's no authority saying "We spell our name lower case", then it probably isn't necessary, especially if emerging is capitalized at the beginning of a sentence or other places where common nouns are capitalized. That seems to be the case here, where he writes "What is 'emerging church'?" but "Emerging church is...". The other thing that strikes me there is the absence of an article: it's not "The emerging church is..." or "An emerging church is..." --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The general convention that I have followed in my academic work is that "church" is only capitalized when it refers to a proper noun, i.e. The Roman Catholic Church. Thus, a reference to the 20th century church, or the church of Christ is lowercase. The adjective "emerging" should be lowercase, just as we would write "the twentieth century church." I think the whole article should be moved to emerging church without a note explaining why. This is not about the emerging/emergent church and its preferences, this is merely a stylistic edit based on recent English practice. Thus no explanation is necessary. njesson August 1, 2005 18:46 (UTC)

I've always seen "emerging church" in lower case. I think that's how McLaren and Pagitt use it anyway.

"Emerging Church" as capital letters suggests a degree of centralization that I believe a movement that describes itself as a "conversation" would wish to avoid. Also, I've never seen "house church" capitalized before either. So I'd support njesson's proposal. Evan Donovan 02:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Dispute with "moderns"

"Modern" Christians often critique the movement as adopting and conforming too easily to postmodern thought, neglecting "modern" evangelical theology, praxis, and thought. But many "moderns" criticize the emerging church for its ongoing use of false antitheses in which anything they don't like is labeled "modern" and then mischaracterized. McLaren's "A Generous Orthodoxy" commits this fallacy in every chapter. A "modern" idea or practice is caricatured and then pit against the emerging church idea or practice so as to make the emerging church idea or practice come out on top. But then when these emerging church ideas or practices are exposed as being postmodern, their responses are evasive.

This slides into POV. Who precisely are the "moderns" here? Modernist Christianity? Liberal Christianity? What's the evidence for this dispute? How can it be described objectively? Tearlach 16:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

What's The Point?

I keep returning to this page to see if I can find some cohesion or clarity, but all I find are arguments and edit wars regarding some rather asinine topics(see Capitalization). Whether it's a movement or a conversation depends on who you talk to. Missional or Missionary? Technically we should be both. Missional in our lifestyles and Missionaries to the world. Bibliography should have been left in, so those of us that aren't getting clarification from sites like this can read what theologians and people actually involved in E/emergent C/church have to say on the subject. It's kind of sad that the discussion page is longer than the article itself. Maybe the article should be scrapped all together until some general concensus on the E/emergent C/church can be reached. How does one define something that hasn't taken a real shape or developed any true characteristics or been given a chance to grow? Seems like we are counting our chickens before they hatch. Anyways, I'm rather dissapointed in what I'm seeing here and if this is what can be expected of the E/emergent C/church maybe we should kill it before it goes anywhere.

Quote from above

"i tend to see this as very undefinable, and if you strive to define it, it is no longer emerging, it is what you think emerging must be and i think we are so beyond that - now..."

Maybe I'm missing the point...maybe we're all missing the point. Icj tlc 19:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Let's do it! Scrap the lot, and rebuild. Tearlach 22:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 23:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

You agree to what? That we are missing the point. The article itself represents the E/emerging C/church. The general undefinability of it is the definition of it. I don't want the answers boxed up and handed to me on a nifty "user edited" wiki, I want answers that lead to more questions. I want the article back the way it was, grammar errors and all. No matter how often the article changed it has still informed. This page Talk:Emerging_Church is the one that I have issues with. It is supposed to be a conversation page, but all anyone is doing is arguing. When you have an article that is as controversial, and is being edited by many users, as this page is, it's going to be hard to define something that no one seems to agree on and that in theory shouldn't be defined (see above). Can we have the article back now and at least start to work together to produce something informative and educational to those that are actively emerging or at least looking into what all the hub-bub is about. All replys welcome. [5] Icj tlc 23:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

You agree to what?

You said Maybe the article should be scrapped all together. Which bit of that did I fail to understand?! This is an encyclopedia: its job is to try to explain. If it's a philosophical stance of those involved in the emerging church to resist definition and categorisation, then that could be reported. But I don't buy that: a quick Google on "emerging church" finds plenty of soundbites from participants saying what it does and what its characteristics are. Tearlach 09:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Revert to May 4th

I've reverted the main text to May 4th 2005, which seems - apart from lack of sourcing and having a humungous link farm - to be a pretty clear start.

Can anything be salvaged, or edited down, from the more recent version?

Characteristics Though expressions of the emerging church vary according to cultural context, tradition and school of thought, they share some distinguishing characteristics including a common and unique language of discourse; encouragement of creative expression; holistic forms of worship; fluency in new media; sensitivity to postmodernity; organizational simplicity; a missionary approach; an ecumenical commitment; and placing value on social justice.

Origins The emerging church originated in reaction to many perceived problems of the late 20th century Church: declining attendance of Protestant churches, particularly amongst Generation X, concern over how the Church would adapt to postmodernity, and increasing suspicion of the missiology of the market-driven mega-church and institutionalized Christianity.

Initially described as a conversation, the emerging church's increasing extension to Asia, Africa, and South America by 2005 led some ecclesiastical scholars, thinkers, and practitioners to describe it as a movement. Others debate this, arguing the term inappropriate ^[6] when there is no central leadership and no communal doctrines or order.

Influence of postmodernity Postmodernity set the cultural context for the emerging church in the West and influenced emerging church thought. Through his work, Stanley Grenz (1950-2005), author of Primer on Postmodernity, urged the emerging church in its postmodern context and conditioning to personify the Christian gospel with a post- individualistic, post- rationalistic, post- dualistic, and post- noeticentric attitude. Grenz envisioned the emerging church emphasizing communal living and the individual in interdependent relationships, human beings as more than cognitive creatures, doctrinal statements secondary to the core objective of the Christian faith to move people toward Christ; and an understanding of knowledge that serves “the attainment of wisdom.”^[7]

Brian McLaren, emerging church author and prominent figure, contends that postmodernity has positive and negative characteristics. According to McLaren, some forms of early postmodernity are dangerous, but are needed in order to restore balance to cultural thought and behavior. McLaren encourages the emerging church to direct postmodernity towards positive tendencies.^[8]

New media and the emerging church The emerging church excels in the use of new media. The connection to developing generations and Christianity is predicted to be enabled by a focus upon communication.^[9]. Hence, the fusion of old and new media often brings a sense of community and connection to the emerging church. The advent of new media allows the emerging church to exist in virtual, online forms. Internet churches, individual and community blogs, online message boards, and wikis often build new media relationships through ongoing conversation about life, spirituality, and the church. Moreover, new media not only deliver community and conversation, but arguably fuel emerging church thought globally.

Terminology: "conversation" or "movement"? Some EC thinkers and practitioners describe the emerging church as a "conversation" and not a "movement", arguing that at present it is still too unstructured to qualify as the latter. For instance, Brian McLaren of the prominent emerging church network Emergent says that "movement" carries connotations of a clear leadership and agenda. "Right now Emergent is a conversation, not a movement. We don't have a program. We don't have a model" [10].

Theological developments

Missiology The emerging church arguably does not have a common missiology. Perhaps, inspired by the missiological works of Roxburgh, Bosch, Lesslie Newbigin, Hunsberger, and the Gospel and Our Culture Network (GOCN), the emerging church has discovered grounds for a renewed missionary theology. As a result of insufficient theological depth on how churches perceive their identity and then how churches associate with their cultural context, Hunsberger addresses Newbigin’s ideology of churches becoming domesticated by culture instead of occupying a domestic missiology that confronts culture. Theological depth and cultural context are essential questions surfacing in the missiological inquiries of the emerging church. Guder addresses the core of missionary perspective being concerned with the Kingdom of God. Modern missiology often focuses upon building the Church collectively or adding to the numbers of individual churches, thus focusing on building bigger and better churches which produce religious goods and services for consumption.^[11] The emerging church seeks to understand and renew the mission of Christ in its postmodern context. Chris Seay, emerging church Pastor, has defended this position, saying, "It should be clear we are championing the gospel and missional values, not what (some) describe as ‘ministry intentionally influenced by postmodern theory.’" Guder suggests there are three major distinctions concerned with surfacing missiology:

• The church as a body of people sent on a mission in contrast to the church as an entity located in a building or in an institutional organization
• The church as a community of gathered people brought together by a common calling and vocation (sent people)
• A shift from church-centered view of mission (mission is about building a church) to an emphasis on the mission of God (mission is about the Kingdom or reign of God)

Additional Improvements

Cleaned intro. Replaced Structure and Commonality with characteristics from this version. Supported by references. removed Historial Context because none of that is supported in any sources. Old Ecclesiology section didn't add anything to article. Merely stated that there is no common stated eccelsiology; replaced with missiology. Cleaned references. Removed external links per wikipedia admin (turns into self-promotion of emerging churches). Hope it's not too academic. --Artisan949 09:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

External links again

List reverted. There was no consensus, only a unilateral assertion (Talk:Emerging_Church#External links) that there should be no links to emerging church sites. Such links are standard for articles on religious groupings (for instance, Anglicanism has external links to Anglican sites). This article is about the emerging church. As long as it doesn't turn into a link farm and makes some effort to focus on representative/useful sites, it's only reasonable to have links to some examples, as well as collective sites such as www.emergingchurch.info. Tearlach 01:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You weren't around before. But the links became over ~50 long. The churches on the list as well are not all considered EC. No way to confirm????? The sites are therefore not useful. Additionally, it becomes a place for self promotion. Maybe should not be something as broad as EC sites. try something else. I removed churches. There are plenty of sites online with such lists. --70.187.148.156 10:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

You weren't around before. Irrelevant: I am now. This argument is a straw man. Linkspam can be dealt with as it happens, not by banning all links. Let editors collectively decide if a particular link is useful or self-promotional. Tearlach 11:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Umm. I just removed some (IMO) linkspam. Hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes. If I am, I'm sure someone will let me know. Danlovejoy 22:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

One thing that would really help, for the whole article, is if people stop introducing references on a "Hey, here's another thing that vaguely relates to the emerging church" basis. Links should be chosen for maximum general usefulness. References are supposed to be just that: sources that were actually used to research the article. That should be the test for inclusion. Tearlach 23:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Um...

If you'll forgive an outside perspective, having read through both the article and the discussion page, I am left entirely confused as to what the Emerging Church is, when if was founded, who by, with what noteworthy aims and doctrinal beliefs, and what it's geographical distribution is.

I followed this link having never heard of the Emerging Church before. The only thing I think I have understood correctly is that it is a missionary organisation, but even there I don't know whether it is domestic missionary, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, or third world missionary.

As to my usual abilities to comprehend information, well... I am a former Mensan and a professional author (with a degree in Anthropology), currently writing a book on Symbolism. I am used to collegiate papers, dry encylopedias, and even media puff. I fear that my only conclusion is that this article is greatly flawed, particularly when compared to Wikipedia's usual high standards.

Tim, tumbleworld, gmail dot com at. 213.42.2.10 16:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

What? You mean this doesn't make it crystal-clear?

Hunsberger addresses Newbigin’s ideology of churches becoming domesticated by culture instead of occupying a domestic missiology that confronts culture. Theological depth and cultural context are essential questions surfacing in the missiological inquiries of the emerging church.

Seriously, you're not the only one to think so - trouble is, efforts to improve it constantly meet resistance from editors determined to keep it couched in obscurity. It may be some mind of postmodern thayng: the emerging church is soooo kewl and postmodern that it defies precise definition, so the article should be equally mind-numbingly imprecise and uniformative. So of course links to sites that actually explain it are out. Tearlach 17:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I have dived in. I'm not a former (or current) Mensan, but I think I've improved the intro, at least. ;-) Danlovejoy 03:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The Nature of Change

This page has been edited to the point of being no use. The ideas expressed are not emerging, and with the exception of a few, the links being offered are not emerging. The people changing this page are not expressing the views of the emerging church, and they change what those in the emerging place on this page - sorry, but all links to this page should be viewed with a very skeptical eye. - unsigned comment by 71.48.5.76 (talk · contribs)

So explain! What do you think are the views of the emerging church? What is the evidence for your statement? All I'm seeing are arbitrary deletions of references and links to articles on the subject. Tearlach 10:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Clean Up - Again

I have marked the page for clean up. It is in dire need of major editing. For the information it contains, it should be about 1/4 of its current length. Danlovejoy 13:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Pioneers in the Emerging Church movement

"the following people are often recognized as important thinkers and pioneers" I don't want to sound harsh - but anyone would think that the 'emerging church' started in North America. This list of people, while influential in the thinking of many people, are all from North America. What about people like Dave Tomlinson (The Post-Evangelical, SPCK 1995), Pete Ward (Liquid Church), Mike Riddell (Threshold of the Future, SPCK, 1998), Alan Jamieson (A Churchless Faith) and the list goes on... Perhaps we ought to avoid this section with the title 'pioneers' and be consistent with the egalitarian leadership culture and not put up a list of people like this. Perhaps the bibliography or references used to create the article is where it ought to be left? --entheos 03:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Quakerism?

It sure sounds to me as if Quakerism shows most of the features mentioned in this article:

• Highly creative approaches to worship and spiritual reflection, as compared to many American churches in recent years. This can involve everything from the use of contemporary music and films through to liturgy or other more ancient customs. The goal in this area is generally to make the church more attractive to the unchurched.

No. Quaker meetings are fairly stereotyped in form.

• A minimalist and decentralized organizational structure.

Yes. Quaker meetings are loosely supervised by committees and "elders." There is no real central authority; the closest thing to it is a person referred to as the "clerk" of the meeting.

• A flexible approach to theology whereby individual differences in belief and morality are accepted within reason.

Yes. In fact there is no creed and "individual revelation" is accepted and is assumed to occur during Meeting for Worship.

• A holistic view of the role of the church in society. This can mean anything from greater emphasis on fellowship in the structure of the group to a higher degree of emphasis on social action, community building or Christian outreach.

Yes. One slogan is "Theology divides, service unites."

• A desire to reanalyze the Bible against the context with the goal of revealing a multiplicity of valid perspectives rather than a single valid interpretation

Well, there is certainly no attempt to find a "single, valid interpretation" of the Bible—or anything else.

• A continual re-examination of theology.

Yes

• A high value placed on creating communities built out of the creativity of those who are a part of each local body.

Yes; the phrase "members of each other" is characteristic.

Dpbsmith (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Introduction Paragraph

The emerging church or emergent church is a diffuse movement or "conversation" which arose in the late 20th century as a reaction to the modernism of Western Christianity. The word conversation is preferred to emphasize that there are many voices contributing to the identity of a movement that is developing, changing and difficult to define. The emerging church is concerned with the deconstruction and reconstruction of Christianity in a postmodern cultural context. Some characteristics of this reconstruction include missional living, narrative theology and "post-individualistic" ideas of community. Author and pastor Brian McLaren is considered to be a prominent spokesperson for the emergent church, but he considers himself to be merely one voice in a dynamic conversation. Proponents are predominantly found in Western Europe, North America, and the South Pacific.

I modified the introduction paragraph to the above based on information from www.emergentvillage.com and www.anewkindofchristian.com. Gold Dragon 21:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Gold Dragon - what does all this mean? I think the introductory paragraph is now less clear. What are "missional living," "narrative theology," and "post-individualistic ideas of Christianity?" I don't think these ideas belong in the introductory paragraph if their meaning isn't self-evident. Also, I don't think any one person should be highlighted in the intro. Unless McLaren is the clear leader of the movement/conversation/whatever, he doesn't belong here in the intro. Danlovejoy 04:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I have clarified missional living and narrative theology. I have also replaced post-individualistic community with Christ-centeredness as a third characteristic to highlight. I hope these characteristics help to give some clarity to boundaries of the emergent church that do not wish to be bound. Regarding the inclusion of Brian McLaren in the introductory paragraph, I believe his contributions to the emergent church and recognition by both supporters and critics warrants inclusion even if he is not a "clear leader". Eventually, I hope to help clean up the rest of the article but thought the intro would be a good place to start. Keep the suggestions coming. Gold Dragon 19:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

From what I've read, it seems that Emergents don't understand the real meaning of Modernism with regard to philosophy and culture. When they say someone is "modern," it seems to me that they mean he/she is intolerant of ambiguity and tends toward theological reductionism. This isn't really a philosophically "Modern" viewpoint at all. They stick everyone who isn't PoMo as "Modern." So I wouldn't introduce "Modernism" into this intro.

You have made some definite improvements, and I'll go ahead and make some more. Let me know if I've gone too far. Danlovejoy 01:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

OK - Done. My goal was to leave in all the information and take out the extra words. I have not removed the reference to modernism as I need to do a lot more research on it. Comments? Danlovejoy 02:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I like it. A few comments. I think using the words diffuse and emerging to explain all the characteristics of the word "conversation" is inadequate and more words need to be spent explaining the meaning of this important word in the EC. I will try to find a better balance. I would say the phrase "believe the following principles" would be uncomfortable to those in the emergent church and "display the following characteristics" would be more acceptable. Although the whole idea of characterizing or principling is generally something the EC seeks not to be and not to have done to themselves. The EC is not just made up of emergent churches but also emergent Christians found in more traditional denominations. So I would change the phrase "Emergent Church" to "Emergent Christians" in the last sentence. Finally, while I think breaking the introductory paragraph into smaller paragraphs and points is more readable, I don't know if there is really enough information here to warrant this many breaks. I'll make some changes and throw it back in your court. Some good word Danlovejoy.