Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gathering Conversation/Movement

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gathering Conversation/Movement

Non-notable "movement", searched for it, and found no information about it. Private Butcher 19:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Private Butcher 19:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment do I smell a cut and paste here? --MacRusgail 19:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • It's cut and paste from various articles I've written over time. All cut and paste is from my documents on my computer via MSWord. Can you tell me why it's up for deletion? I don't understand, first time on Wiki 70.35.170.125 20:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • There's some stuff of interest here, but there's also some stuff which could be cut. When I said cut and paste, I was thinking more (C) violation, but maybe not. As for the nomination, you'll have to ask the nominator. I think it's less deserving than some of the stuff on the deletion page anyway. --MacRusgail 20:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Article should be called "The Emergent Movement in Churches of Christ." But even then, I doubt this page can be salvaged. Emergents are apparently not clear on what their movement is, where it's going, who's involved, or what vocabulary to use. They are very, very long on philosophy and wordiness. Look at the Emerging Church article and you'll see what I mean. I believe the author should focus his energies on improving that article. It needs a lot of help Danlovejoy 20:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Not yet a movement. It's a conversation. If it's not worthy, doesn't meet standards then delete. I'm learning as I go. One thing for sure the emergent Church of Christ is not the same as the Emergent Church. Distinct differences. When your outside the conversation EC it is misunderstood, much like grace.

Lots of religions with secret knowledge claim they can't be understood from the outside. If it can't be explained in simple language, it doesn't belong in the Wikipedia. Danlovejoy 12:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Misunderstood has become equal to secret? fred 16:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I have trimmed the article and attempted to make it unbiased. fred 16:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)70.35.170.125 00:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• • 'KEEP' The article contains useful information about the movement. Some of the comments for deletion seem to be because of disagreement with the views of emergents. The jibe about "secret knowledge" may be perceived by some of us as a not-so-veiled reference to the ole gnostics. And "we" all know they were heretics, right? This is guilt by association. But the purpose of this discussion about deletion is not about whether they are heretics or not. (Yep, the emergents do have difficulty conveying what they are up to, but they are making the effort and do not claim, as far as I know, that they have any secret knowledge.) There was a critique about emergents being long on philosophy and wordiness. Whether they are or not is beside the point. Whether they are right or wrong is beside the point. What is to the point is that they are a small but growing movement within the CofC. They are around and that cannot be changed or deleted away.

Yes, it was an thoroughly unveiled gnostic jibe. I'm not implying anything - I'm drawing an unflattering, perhaps unfair parallel. Danlovejoy 02:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, anonymous votes do not count in a VfD. Second - there is a difference between "misunderstood" and "not understandable." Grace is explainable in human words, after all, Paul did it quite effectively. This movement, evidently, is not. I have no objection to a description of whatever this is being on the Wikipedia. There are lots of things on the Church of Christ article with which I disagree. But I am not convinced that anyone can write the article. Look at this prose!

The Church of Christ emergent sees present and future theology as creative pursuit and passionate inquiry, like the best art and the best science. Psychology, sociology, the new physics, history, comparative religion, and spirituality—not to mention postmodernism in general—all are calling for creative Christians to unfold new paradigms to use in new world explorations. The old systems are tired, used up, and worn out, but the thirst for God is as strong as ever.

WHA?!! It's the same as the Emerging Church page. Mountains and mountains of vague, crappy writing filled with buzzwords. Can anyone explain this movement in clear, human language? Or is it not understandable from the outside at all? Danlovejoy 22:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• • There's plenty in this article that's not like the Emerging Church page also. Instrumental music/ a cappella, how the emergent churches of Christ are organized, how we see evangelism, and more--and all understandable. And all unique to the emergent Church of Christ.
  • Tell me what you can't understand in the paragraph you cited above? I understand it...it's clear! Do you need me to explain?
  • I really wonder what is going on here. When this page first went up I inquired as to why it was up for deletion. The nominator sent me a message and said "no sources." So I began the process of adding and said more would be added over time; now the reason has changed. Now I'm hearing, it's crappy and can't be understood.
  • Don't ignore something that is happening; even if you don't agree; even when you don't completely understand. fred 23:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I have to apologize for the "crappy" comment. That was uncalled-for.

Yes, Fred, I would like for you to explain it, on the page, not in the VfD. Please feel free to clean it up dramatically. No, I am not going to attempt to parse it, but I will give you some objections to chew on.

First of all, why is the page titled "Gathering Conversation/Movement" when it should be titled "Church of Christ Emergent" or "Emerging Churches of Christ?: I think the title here points to the essential ambiguity of the er... movement. Y'all can't even agree to call it a movement. It's a "conversation." Well, a conversation is informal, ephemeral, and almost always oral. We don't call bodies of like-minded people "conversations" in modern English, so you need to come up with a word that is instantly recognizable to everyone who is trying to understand what you're trying to say. The word, while imperfect, is "movement." But everyone seems so enamored with the word "conversation" that they insist on everyone else understanding that bizarre usage of the word rather than the word all the rest of us understand. Why? Perhaps because argot lends a feeling of exclusivity and belonging. I don't know.

To those of us on the outside, the paragraph I cited is simply gobbledygook. It is anything but clear. I find it hard to believe that anyone, in this day and age, could use the word "paradigm" and expect to be taken seriously. I'm surprised the author didn't manage to work in "outside the box," "dialoguing," or "vision casting."

The issue at hand here is whether the "Emerging Church of Christ" merits an article in the Wikipedia. Now, I'll bet if you called up the churches in the list and asked the person who answered the phone, "Are you an Emerging Church of Christ?" he/she would say "What?" Only one website of the churches listed in the article (Garnett in Tulsa) has any reference at all to the Emerging church. There's one blog entry by Wade Hodges and two references to the book "The Emerging Church."

If someone wants to write an article about the "Church of Christ Emergent" not "Gathering Conversation/Movement" that is clear and to-the-point, NPOV, and certainly not sickeningly laudatory like this article, far be it from me to stand in your way.

However, I have yet to see a concise, straightforward argot-free explanation of "The Emergent Church" from anyone. I don't know if it can be done. Danlovejoy 02:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Sorry about my anonymous post above(due to my incompetence with editing) where I voted to keep. Let me set it straight that I am--Steve 02:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

In unison. "HI STEVE!"

You'll find that the Wikipedia is a very post-modern experience. I hope you stick around and contribute to the conversation. FYI. The usual way to indent is with colons rather than asterisks. But it makes little difference. Danlovejoy 02:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Greeting,

I didn’t want to misrepresent the point in time along the continuum of a movements evolution so I tried to be honest when I refered to this as a gathering conversation gaining momentum. That’s what it is--at this time. At some point it will become a movement; but not yet. This is the reality. Conversation always precedes a movement.

As for the churches I listed. If you telephoned each one and asked I know for certain two churches would say they were emergent. Of course, if the church sec or building and grounds people answered the phone they might be puzzled by your question. But if you asked them about belong/before believe or evangelism or the other sections I'm confident a light would switch on; and each one listed would resonate. Remember, the restoration was the product of churches discovering each other and their similar beliefs and practices; a movement.

You're correct--we have our own language. A re-lexiconing project is not out of question. Why not be open to reviewing how our Christianese may or may not be communicating? If we are willing to to translate so native tribes can understand, why be reluctant to do good missionolgy here (in America) so we can really take the message to the streets?

This has really become more than I have the energy and time for. I’m busy and can’t dedicate the time to what I think you're asking (although I have to honestly say I was never clear, and I read the messages on this page closely.). I just wish we had bantered before I posted the article and had understood exactly what you expected. I believe the ECofC should have, if nothing else, a small parcel of Wiki space. Peace my friends. fred 01:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete if it can't be rewritten. I had originally suggested the separate page to avoid an unwarranted lengthy section in the Churches of Christ main page, since it would seem the movement is very small in size right now. A rewrite focussing on the basics would be my preferred way of handling this: who are these churches, what do they believe that makes them distinct from the other subgroups, what's the history of the movement, etc.

Can you leave the link to emergent church of Christ on the main page and I'll rewrite it, to your liking, in the next week or two? fred 01:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't planning on removing anything, at least not until the RfD is dealt with (obviously, if it's deleted, the link would have to go). If you do rename/move the article, please do keep the link updated. As I said, my preferred way of dealing with it would be a rewrite of the article rather than deletion. Jdb1972 12:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.