Talk:Calvary Chapel Association/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Government structures

In the 2nd paragraph of the introduction there is this statement "Calvary Chapels widely use a Pastor-led church governmental system sometimes referred to the "Moses" model; however some use an episcopal church-governance structure[citation needed]." What does this mean? Isn't pastor-led and episcopal church polities essentially the same, the idea being that the pastor acts in the same capacity as a bishop? If I'm wrong and there is a difference can the difference be mentioned in the article. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

They are absolutely not the same. Episcopal polity implies a hierarchy, with a bishop having authority over a number of pastors, an archbishop having authority over a number of bishops, and so on. CC does have some similarity to this in that Chuck Smith exercises a certain amount of moral authority, and there is the possibility of a church being stripped of CC status if something really egregious happens, but there is no day-to-day oversight. CC's governance is more akin to congregational polity, in that every church is formally independent, though it is different in that the elders do not have any oversight authority over the pastor.

I know that people tend to talk about CC's governance, partly because CC itself makes a big deal about it and attempts to justify it biblically, but I wonder how remarkable it really is. Are there not many other non-denominational churches that operate under a similar model? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a member of a non-denominational Pentecostal church and it is essentially the same. Our pastor in theory has a board he answers too, but, unless the pastor does something extreme such as kill someone, the board follows the pastor.

Why I asked about it is that I'm looking at the Moses mnodel, being pastor led, with the episcopal modedel, bishop led, as esentially the same idea. But I understand the difference when it is told in hierarchy terms. Ltwin (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Those were good discussions. So it does appear to be significantly different structures, but only comes into play when church discipline is required. In the Moses model, the head preacher cannot be questioned because he receives "directly from the Lord" while everyone else is supposed to follow the lead. In an elder led church, the preacher is accountable to at least the elders. I added a section on the Talk page about church discipline, but maybe it belonged in this section. Sliceofmiami (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

From "What Cavalry Chapel Teaches", Church Government chapter. http://biblefacts.org/church/WCCT.pdf.

"Calvary Chapel also differs from most mainline churches in its style of church government. Most denominational churches maintain either a congregational form of church government, a Presbyterian form, or an Episcopal form of running their churches. These three terms should not be confused with the denominations that bear the same names because other churches of different names share the same style of government.

The congregational form of church government is an American invention and appeals to our American sense of democracy. Basically, the congregation as a whole makes all decisions in these churches by voting on matters of importance and appointing committees from its ranks to run the daily operation of the church.

Most Congregational, Baptist, Pentecostal, Brethren, and non-denominational churches are organized in this fashion. The congregation votes on hiring a pastor, votes on how to spend the money, and on anything else of importance. Although democratic people like the idea, congregational forms of church government often wind up at best causing the pastor to be directed by the sheep he is supposed to lead, and at worst reducing the pastor to a hireling.

The Episcopal form of church government, used by Episcopalian, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, and Methodist churches (to name a few) is controlled by a church hierarchy which may have differing names. Basically, there is a bishop, or someone of similar stature if called by a different name, who oversees the churches, appoints pastors to pulpits, sets policy, and guides the vision of the local congregations. Unfortunately, this style of government, which grew out of European monarchies, leaves little freedom for the local pastor of congregation to follow the leading of the Spirit.

The Presbyterian form of church government, which is typical in Presbyterian and Reformed churches, puts the decisions of church polity in the hands of a select group of elders (the "presbytery") who are appointed in various different ways, depending on the church. These elders are over the pastor, who in turn is over the congregation. The problem here too is that this system puts the God-appointed leader, the pastor, under some of those he is supposed to lead.

Calvary Chapels are organized differently. Church government at Calvary Chapel is very simple, not a complex bureaucracy, committees and sub-committees are virtually non-existent. Basically, at Calvary Chapel we believe that the pastor is responsible for the church, responsible to hear from God, and responsible to feed and love His people faithfully. Elders are appointed in the larger churches to help the pastor care for the spiritual needs of the congregation, as are deacons to help the pastor care for the material needs of the church.

In addition, our churches have church boards as required by most states which vary in size depending on the size of the church, and which usually are made up of mature Christian businessmen who can advise the pastor with respect to the business operations and decisions of the church such as property management and investments. At Calvary Chapel, church organization is de-emphasized, and only the organization that is needed to run the church is instituted. The pastor guides the church as he is lead by the Holy Spirit, and we trust God to put pastors where He wants them to be." 66.177.182.13 (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "leading of the Spirit"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.246.173.34 (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sliceofmiami didn't write this. The link given appears to be a CC fact sheet. The phrase "leading of the Spirit" means that the church is being led by the Holy Spirit. In CC's context, the primary person in the congregation to discern where the Spirit of God is leading the church is the pastor. Of course, all Christians have the Holy Spirit and so the pastor does not have a monopoly on discerning what the Spirit is saying and doing and wanting the church to do. However, in CC's context it is the pastor who leads the congregation and it is he who has primary responsibility for seeking Spiritual direction and then directing the congregation to go that direction. Think of the Spirit as walking and the church following the Spirit everywhere that he goes. Never leaving the Spirit's path. Ltwin (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this article written as an advertisement for Calvary Chapel?

Is this article written by persons affiliated with Calvary Chapel? I just finished reading Wiki articles concerning various denominations/churches and when I read the Calvary Chapel article, it didn't seem to take an objective viewpoint. Also, the writing style does not seem professional. I was surprised that scriptures of the Bible are sourced when the article states Calvary Chapel beliefs (much like a Church brochure). Usually, the beliefs of the church are simply summarized in Wikipedia articles. For example, the Wiki article on "Baptist" does not list the Biblical verse that supports their belief that a child must/must not be baptized, etc.

Basically, this article sounds like a pamphlet written by Calvary Chapel itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.96.197 (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been said before, but not much has been done about it. Feel free to give it a try. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, a lot of the material reflects sources internal to Calvary Chapel and the tone of the article reflects that of members of Calvary Chapel or others sympathetic to this movement. An ambitious editor might go line by line to rework sentences. As a non-Calvary chapel person with a critical perspective I have to acknowledge that the most easily accessed information available is internal to Calvary Chapel. It would be interesting to hear what kind of formats and editorial standards are in place for similar articles,and then some suggested guidelines to follow for re-editing.24.1.47.198 (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

One example of a good stylistic edit might be to change a sentence like "Calvary chapel faithfully upholds" to something more neutral like "Calavary Chapels believe..." and so on.Don Van Duyse (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Actually, I have seen this page when it reflects more realistically on the denomination. I expect when I look at the history, I'll find a bunch of reverts and other edits to remove the severe controversies within Chuck Smith's denomination. Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have planned to work on this article, but to be honest get lazy everytime I attempt it. Besides that, I'm not in any way affiliated with Calvary Chapel so really can only offer copy editing and editing for verifiability and NPOV. But I could try with some help. Ltwin (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Identity as a denomination

Ok, it seems we have a disagreement on whether Calvary Chapel is a denomination. In my opinion, it is a denomination as churches who affiliate with Calvary Chapel agree with that affiliation to take on those characteristics of Calvary Chapel and disavow characteristics which are not characteristic of Calvary Chapel. Just because Calvary Chapel sees itself as non-denominational does not mean that everyone else has to. The article should note that Calvary Chapel does not view itself as a denomination, but the article should also note that it has many of the characteristics of a denomination. On the point of it having no common governing structure, well that is not entirely true. It may have an extremely loose structure - and one that is centered in the influence and person of Chuck Smith - but it does have a structure. So I would say this is a denomination, albeit a very decentralized one and one that does not understand itself to be a denomination. Ltwin (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You have a disagreement with CC, not me or other editors. Your opinion is just that. They are called Calvary Chapel and that is the extent of being affiliated. They do not have central governance, not even in the person of Chuck Smith. They do not pay dues or a percentage of tithes to a central body. They have no common liturgy. They have no common hymnal. They have no structures that would make them a denomination. They have a Bible school, but you don't have to attend a CC to attend i. Congregants of local CCs are not required to attend it. The closest thing to being a denomination is that pastors of most CCs have attended a CC in the past and have been trained within that congregation before setting-up a new congregation or being called to a congregation. Just because you see them as denomination does not mean that they are or that anyone else should either. If you wish to add that they have characteristics of a denomination, you will have to explain what those characteristics are. Suggesting that they are a denomination because they follow a pattern of service as was created by Chuck Smith would also make Willow Creek a denomination since many congregations have followed methods laid out in the Purpose Driven book series. Feel free to elaborate on your theory, but be prepared to conclusively prove it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Walter, there is a central governance. Calvary Chapel operates under a franchise model. For example, there is a protected radius between churches, and a new church has to be approved by the organization run by Chuck Smith. Please do your research before _targeting another user. I'm sure you did it in good faith. Your statements would be used to suggest the Southern Baptist church is also not a denomination. Read Religious_denomination. So now that you are armed with the truth, please "be prepared to conclusively prove [your theory]." Sliceofmiami (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, but I don't think it's up to me to defend CC's position but up to other editors to prove it's not the case. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Walter Gorlitz, I don't know why you lashed out at me. I didn't even make the edit. I saw it and left comments here. Wikipedia is not required to defer to an organizations idea of itself. It only has to note it. All Calvary Chaples must adhere to the Calvary Chapel Distinctives.

"Can I become a Calvary Chapel if I don’t necessarily agree with the Calvary Distinctives and have Biblical proof for my position?

No, because we want the use of the name Calvary Chapel (copyrighted) to imply the doctrinal positions expressed in the 'Distinctives'. This is not to say other positions are wrong, they are simply other positions than those held by Calvary Chapel. It is no different in the secular world and referred to as 'branding'. When a name comes into widespread recognition that describes what one can expect, it needs to be maintained as such." - CCOF Ministry FAQs

So, its not a denomination but a "movement", yet it requires churches to believe (and notice its not just sort of believe) and adhere to the distinctives. Sounds like a denomination to me. They have a "fellowshipping" process which entitles a minister and church to use the Calvary Chapel name. Furthermore, to stay a Calvary Chapel, an affiliated church must have a Calvary Chapel pastor. If they do not have a pastor who adheres to the distinctives then they are out. In fact, them naming there beliefs "Calvary Chapel Distinctives" implies that they are distinguishing themselves from others. The Calvary Chapel Outreach Fellowships (CCOF) exists to insure that churches with the Calvary Chapel name are actually "doing business" as a Calvary Chapel. For example, "It is to this end that CCOF exists: To request and validate a man’s doctrine and to ensure that there is consistency of teaching style and content." There is also the authority element to a denominational identity, "Another dynamic to the request that a man go through the fellowshipping 'process' is to see if he is truly a servant; willing to bend to authority." Also, they have a chaplaincy program! Sliceofmiami is correct. CC's organization has parallels with the Southern Baptist Convention. Ltwin (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Not lashing-out at you. Just commenting that the burden of proof is not in my camp. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Valid points, Walter. So then Calvary Chapel is a Religious Movement that is operated as a franchise to protect the name. As Walter validly points out, "When a name comes into widespread recognition that describes what one can expect, it needs to be maintained as such." I support that position -- if I owned a trademark known world-wide, I would also want to protect it's use.

However, you have not identified how Calvary Chapel is not a denomination. Walter, if you wish to change the denomination page so that Calvary Chapel does not fit into that definition, please do. As it stands right now, the page identifies that "A religious denomination is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity" -- which the franchise model required of "doing business as" Calvary Chapel follows. Again, if you disagree, then please change the denomination page.

Walter, would it please you if we refer to Calvary as a Religious Movement instead of a Denomination? Sliceofmiami (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I would not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then why not? On both. Here are the definitions we are using, taken directly from Wikipedia:

• Religious Movement... may be part of a wider religion, such as Christianity, in which case they will be distinct from pre-existing denominations.
• A denomination is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity.

Sliceofmiami (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sliceofmiami, I think you are confusing my comments, Ltwin, which support CC being called a denomination, with Walters Gorlitz's comments. Also, no offence, but I reverted the inclusion of New Religious Movements as CC would be considered in historic Christianity. There isn't really much new about it. Ltwin (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I am asking Walter to explain how Calvary Chapel is not a Religious Movement and is not a denomination. I see Calvary Chapel as both, as defined by Wikipedia. Calvary Chapel is very young at 40 years. It is certainly not historic. Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What I mean by historic is that it is in the main of Orthodox Christianity. There is nothing really original about Calvary Chapel, that is why I don't understand why this is being linked to the New Relgious Movements article. Ltwin (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

---

This is getting really long. Okay, here is where we stand:

• Two users support the idea that Calvary Chapel is clearly a denomination, defined as "a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity," and have listed both definitions and links to support this claim.
• One user supports the idea that Calvary Chapel is a Religious Movement, defined as "part of a wider religion, such as Christianity, in which case they will be distinct from pre-existing denominations," and has listed the definition to support this claim.
• One user does not accept either definition as applied to Calvary Chapel, but has not listed why.

Walter, please describe why you do not support either of these attachments. Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You have not made the case why either definition applies. You need verifiable sources to make a change. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"One user does not accept either definition as applied to Calvary Chapel, but has not listed why." This is not true, Walter did explain reasons why he does not see CC as a denomination, and I agree with him: "They do not have central governance, not even in the person of Chuck Smith. They do not pay dues or a percentage of tithes to a central body. They have no common liturgy. They have no common hymnal. They have no structures that would make them a denomination. They have a Bible school, but you don't have to attend a CC to attend i. Congregants of local CCs are not required to attend it. The closest thing to being a denomination is that pastors of most CCs have attended a CC in the past and have been trained within that congregation before setting-up a new congregation or being called to a congregation. Just because you see them as denomination does not mean that they are or that anyone else should either."

Christian denomination has some interesting things to say that are applicable. "Christianity has denominational families (or movements) and also has individual denominations (or communions). Within these denominational families and movements are (often further denominational families and) various individual denominations or communions. The difference between a denomination and a denominational family is sometimes unclear to outsiders. Some denominational families can be considered major branches." "Comparisons between denominational churches must be approached with caution. For example, in some churches, congregations are part of a larger church organization, while in other groups, each congregation is an independent autonomous organization. This issue is further complicated by the existence of groups of congregations with a common heritage that are officially nondenominational and have no centralized authority or records, but which are identified as denominations by non-adherents. Study of such churches in denominational terms is therefore a more complex proposition."

CC most likely does not consider itself a denomination because, while affiliate churches share common theological beliefs, they do not behave like traditional denominations when it comes to governance, franchising model (you don't 'pay' for the 'privilege' of becoming or continuing to be a CC), and the other things Walter mentioned. Individual churches do not even practice the same patterns of worship.

The CC statement of faith says "We are not a denominational church, nor are we opposed to denominations as such, only their over-emphasis of the doctrinal differences that have led to the division of the Body of Christ." The point being that there is a strong desire to avoid division both inside and outside the body. The irony here is that here we are potentially becoming divided over a single word and whether it 'defines' CC.

Currently the article reads that CC is an 'association' of churches. Is this a true statement? Absolutely; I do not think it can be factually argued that CC is not an association by the definition of association. Would it be correct to change this to 'denomination'? Given the discussion here, maybe and maybe not. I have seen no standard academic test (and I would submit that such a test would be found in a more scholarly reference than wikipedia) that can be applied to say what is classified as a denomination; only some general rules that sometimes fit CC and sometimes do not. Because there is no question that the movement is an association but there are lingering questions as to whether it is a denomination, it seems logical to stick with the current wording of 'association.' 66.177.182.13 (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A congregation does not have to "pay" for the privelege of being in a denomination. It is apart of a denomination if it meets the requirement. It just so happens that CC does not require monetary contributions, but it does require adherence to the CC Distinctives. Also, there are plenty of denominations that do not have a common liturgy. For example, the Assemblies of God, Baptist denominations, etc. However all of these, and I would expect Calvary Chapels, share common characteristics which come from there denominations. Also, I would say the fact the Calvary Chapel does not consider itself a denomination is not unique. The two denominations I mentioned earlier, the Assemblies of God and Baptist denominations like the SBC, do not consider themselves denominations. The Assemblies of God still refers to itself as a "movement" and the SBC sees itself as just a vehicle of cooperation between autonomous Baptist congregations. Ltwin (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Bu the Southern Baptist Convention do consider themselves to be a denomination. Tony Campolo, who is SBC, regularly refers to it as the Southern Baptist denomination. ---Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah you are right. They mention it on their website. Either way still shows that a denomination does not have to exercise authority over local congregations. Ltwin (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: Network

Ok, looking over articles, such as this (both from Christianity Today) and this, Calvary Chapel is referred to as a "network". While I still think it's a denomination, the term network describes Calvary Chapel alot better than an "association" as CC is highly relational. Ltwin (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The more I've researched the idea of "non-denominational", the more the movement appears to be a hostile organization with cult-like protection of personalities. I really thought the research would indicate it to be a Christian denomination. When I searched google for "calvary chapel denomination" I came up with a lot of articles just within the first twenty articles that cast a different shadow on the organization, and I'm not sure what to make of it. Here are a few:

• "Controversial subjects that can be quite uncomfortable are handled in a way to find the middle road so that everyone is kept happy and peaceful -though ignorant- so as not to lose numbers (Calvary Chapel Distinctives, pp.56-57)." [1]
• "There seems to be a very desperate stance within Calvary Chapel to keep from calling itself a denomination. " from [2]
• Church Jobs organizes CC as a denomination from [3]
• References to charismatic leadership (protection of charismatic personalities) instead of integrity [4]
• "religious intolerance toward non-Calvary Christians, excessive authoritarianism, sponsorship of hate rallies" [5]
• "a church such as Calvary Chapel can pride itself in “teaching through the bible” yet miss the serious implications of the gospel." [6]

I'll stand down for now. I no longer think that Calvary Chapel is a "christian denomination" like the Southern Baptist Churches. Sliceofmiami (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I consider the LDS church to be both a cult and a denomination, however, that is my opinion. You would need a reliable source that says its cultlike to include that in the article. To me, an organization can be a denomination irrespective of it having cultlike characteristics, as long as its members share a common doctrine, culture, and are recognized by others as a distinct group. But, to include the claims that it is cultlike would require reliable sources as would designating it a denomination. I have not been able to find a reliable independent sources on Calvary Chapel which designate it as a denomination. That is why I suggest calling it what Christianity Today has termed it - a network. Ltwin (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Network is interesting, though the second Christianity Today article also uses the word 'association'. One of sliceofmiami's blog post references mentions the term "independent congregations". That suggests a looser coupling than the term network might otherwise imply. Is there any compelling reason why it needs to change from association?

Perhaps I should not do this, but I will respond to the items referenced by sliceofmiami, each in turn. Initially, none of them seem to be scholarly references that would help define denomination, but I recognize the good faith efforts in trying to find academic references while landing on these, instead. Generally speaking, a search on the web regarding any movement with 1100+ churches is going to turn up some criticism along with stories of mistakes by the human beings who are involved. That does not excuse any sin issues, but I don't believe that a label of 'hostile' or 'cult-like' is fair, either.

The quotes themselves seem to give one side of a story. So it seems reasonable to examine the articles further.

Reference #1 makes mention of avoiding controversial subjects so as to not lose numbers. I don't see anything about a focus on losing numbers on page 55 (or 56 or 57) in Distinctives. The statement on 55 says "An important characteristic of Calvary Chapel Fellowships is our desire not to divide God's people over non-essential issues. This is not to say that we do not have strong convictions. When the Bible speaks clearly, we must as well. But on other issues we try to recognize the Scriptural validity of both sides of a debate and avoid excluding or favoring those in one camp over the other." The primary focus here is "non-essential issues," which is a biblical principle! Titus 3:9 [NIV]: "But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless."

Reference #2: is there a problem with not wanting to be thought of as a denomination, when the very word seems to indicate exclusivity and the fellowship of churches would presumably prefer to be loving and inclusive?

Reference #3: understood. This seems to be for the sake of organization, however. I don't see a option to "search by non-denomination."

Reference #4: I think I'm missing something here. I don't see where the blog post even mentions the word integrity or protection of personalities.

Reference #5: What was interesting to me was the part of the reference that was not quoted: "Calvary Chapels have been criticized by Evangelical, moderate, and liberal Christians for a variety of reasons". That's fascinating - conservatives, moderates, and liberals are all finding fault. Maybe CC is doing something right!  :) It reminds me of how the various Jewish sects (that term is used non-pejoratively) banded together against Jesus as well as the apostle Paul.

Reference #6: the author's point seems to be that CC's do not focus on or teach doctrine. And yet, CC's associate by agreeing upon certain doctrinal stances, and others criticize CC for CC's own criticism of doctrinal stances held by other movements that do not agree with CC's stances. It's all so circular and confusing.

Regarding any thought that CC is a cult, the adherents.com page had something interesting to say: "One charge which is groundless is that the Calvary Chapel is a non-Christian cult. Although it has a variety of unique beliefs and practices, nothing about the Calvary Chapel would indicate that it identifies itself as a non-Christian religious group. These charges appear to have been brought against the Calvary Chapel more because of its confrontational nature and controversial growth and marketing practices than because of any of its actual teachings or practices."

SoM, I see that you are a freelance writer in Miami. The adherents.com article you referenced has this quote: "Those interested in Calvary Chapels should use other resources and visit the nearest Calvary Chapel location." (Their emphasis, not mine.) I second this motion. There is a fantastic pastor at the CC in Ft. Lauderdale, his name is Bob Coy. Personally, I love his teaching. Another church potentially near you is CC Kendall, led by Pedro Garcia. I've heard Pedro speak once and found it solid. Be a Berean! 66.177.182.13 (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, x.13.

One "tell sign" of a cult is if the organization preaches isolationism. It would be interesting to know if the followers of Coy have hostility against groups that are known to do the "will of the Lord" like Catholics and Baptists or other "christian" organizations.

I cannot speak for Coy, but from what I know of him I believe he would be completely uncomfortable with any characterization that CCFL attendees are "followers of Coy" rather than "followers of Jesus Christ". As for your other question, you might find it interesting that Coy and Garcia are teaching at the Billy Graham Training Center this November [7]. So there is at least one example of non-isolationism and co-laboring between CC and Baptists. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

So just now I googled for "calvary chapel cult deprogramming" and came up with 21000 entries. I'm sure some of them are "pro-Calvary" but all the ones I clicked on were deprogramming people from the Calvary Chapel movement. This is starting to remind me of the Jimmy Jones movement from the 70s.

When I do "calvary chapel cult deprogramming" (including the quotes) in Google, I get zero hits. Without the quotes Google does some fuzzy searching to find terms. I'm not sure if quoting 21000 hits is supposed to lend credence to the search, but an interesting counterpoint to that idea is that a search for the terms 'slice of miami loves calvary chapel' gives 6,150,000 hits. So that must be more true than any suggestion that CC is a cult.  :) 66.177.182.13 (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

712,000 for Roman Catholic Cult v. 22,000,000 for Roman Catholic

355,000 for Lutheran Cult v. 16,000,000 for Lutheran

864,000 for Baptist Cult v. 38,200,000 for Baptist

33 for ""calvary+chapel+cult" calvary chapel cult"

What is your point? I think you need to step back from this article since you know nothing about the subject and you're biased and incorrectly think CC is a cult. It's your rason d'etre. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Walter, I think you and I are saying the same thing. Clearly any thought that CC is a cult would fall into the 'undue weight' wiki policy. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• "at Calvary Chapel we believe that the pastor is ... responsible to hear from God" [8]. Pretty scary stuff. So the responsibility is no longer with the People of Jesus, but with a single man. How is church discipline against the Senior Pastor handled, then? It sounds as though he is exonerated above all saints, and this parallels the Jimmy Jones model of church government.

Scary? That a pastor should be called to ministry rather than pursuing it as a profession? I respect that is your opinion. As for church discipline, the current article already notes that "[r]egional lead pastors exercise a measure of accountability.[21] Since no legal or financial ties link the different Calvary Chapels, only disaffiliation can serve as a disciplinary procedure."

The Jim Jones reference seems overly melodramatic. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Fully agreed. I would not attend a church were the paster was not responsible to hear from God. Why else would you attend a sermon? I suppose you might want to hear from the government, but not in the US (separation of church and state thing you've got going on). Perhaps from the leader of the denomination. And from who does the lead get inspiration? Perhaps a reading from the daily paper? That is the purpose of most Anabaptist congregations. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, here is how Church Discipline works. "Smith's book Calvary Chapel Distinctives teaches that senior pastors should be answerable to God, not to a denominational hierarchy or board of elders." "...produces pastors who refuse to let their authority be challenged. Such pastors often resist accountability measures such as financial audits and providing detailed financial statements." [9]

Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. Since there is no denominational hierarchy, that statement is a red herring. However, other CC pastors can be brought in by the elders if they think their pastor is going out to left field. I suggest you speak with a CC pastor. They are answerable to their elders and the congregation, but also to scripture. If they can back any position with scripture, and their detractors cannot, then they are right in their position. That is how CC works: scripture first. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• This site is filled with references to the Calvary Chapel Cult [10]

Let's back up here. We are starting to discuss the church instead of discuss what entries belong on this page. So far the Calvary Chapel page looks like a slick marketing campaign for Chuck Smith's movement. Actually, see also above "Is this article written as an advertisement for Calvary Chapel?"

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." As long as there are verifiable sources that identify Calvary as either a denomination or as a cult, or to include referenced articles that are either proponents of or critical of the organization, that is sufficient to include the reference. Does anyone disagree with this Wiki guideline?

If everyone agrees to the Wiki guideline, then some of the research we've already found should be included on the page. It is not sufficient to define nor defend Calvary directly by the Calvary articles alone -- that is all "original work" by Smith and not sufficient for inclusion directly on the Wiki article. Sliceofmiami (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

At this point I feel obliged to tell you that I will be contacting my friends in CC congregations. I don't feel comfortable with the discussion around it being a cult. Based on your discussion above, particularly centred on isolationism, The Roman Catholic church would qualify. There are many senior members who deny any other denomination as being valid. They won't allow members from other churches to have fellowship, particularly Eucharist, with them. I'm not anti-Catholic, I'm just making a case. Regardless, you should have some eyes on this page shortly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Slice of Miami, most of the sites you give are not reliable sources per WP:IRS. Many of them are blogs and Rick Ross is not a reliable source. I find no reason to put in the article that it's a cult. Most Christian groups are accused of being cults and some point, in fact all religions pretty much. Unless we get reliable 3rd party sources alleging it is a cult, it should not be mentioned in the article. I suggest we drop this for now unless reliable 3rd party sources are found. Ltwin (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we got off track in discussing Calvary Chapel instead of the wikipedia entry about Calvary Chapel. Sliceofmiami (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

100% agree with Walter and Ltwin. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Can the 66.177.182.13 contributor identify him or herself? Sliceofmiami (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by the question? 66.177.182.13 (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

POV?

I think that the POV tags is a hammer. I would rather see sections tagged with POV tags rather than the entire article. I also think Sliceofmiami has a bias against this group. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Walter, I was adding the NPOV section as you were typing. I don't think it should be that either of our biases are used in the discussions, only referenced and verifiable material. Sliceofmiami (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to follow what appears to be Wiki guidelines, not provide a hammer or a blow. Let me quote Wiki --

By linking to this page from an article, a dissenter can register his or her concern without unduly upsetting the author(s) or maintainer(s) of the article, and without starting a flame war. Others would maintain, however, that linking to this page only postpones the dispute. This might be a good thing, though, if a "cooling off" period seems required.

It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not.

Sliceofmiami (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Walter. If there are certain sections that need cleanup (and there probably are), then those sections deserve the tag and not the entire article. Also, I agree with Walter that it seems SoM has bias; it doesn't seem right for a user with bias to add such a tag. So the tag should be removed and added to relevant sections by a non-biased user. I nominate Ltwin. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Can the 66.177.182.13 contributor identify him or herself? "All editors and all sources have biases," or so says Wiki. Sliceofmiami (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Okay, it seems we have sufficient discussion here to identify that the article is not written from a neutral point of view. I am not sure exactly how to resolve the references and inclusions. I am still studying the guidelines of Wiki.

The problems arise from the first note on this talk page -- it seems as though this is a marketing campaign for Calvary Chapel, and that note was added quite a while ago. Some of the referenced articles come directly from Mr. Smith's organization instead of from external sources, which seems to be an issue -- resulting in a type of circular definition. For example, the "denomination" discussion -- from an outsider's point of view, Mr. Smith's organization fits the definition contained in Religious Denomination (subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity) and religious movement (loose affiliations based on novel approaches to spirituality), yet from an internal Calvary point of view, Mr. Smith's organization is an "association."

As I look through the edit history, there seems to be several attempts from those who appear to be "outsiders" to edit the page, only to be reverted by those who appear to be "insiders." Sliceofmiami (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, such is the general nature of Wikipedia. What I've seen with this page, though, is an awful lot of change (both positive and negative toward CC) since it was created. Undoubtedly it will never be perfect, and reverts will occur when changes are biased, unsourced, or unnecessary. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Note... I've researched through some of the Discussion history, and it appears that most of the severely controversial information against Calvary Chapel and Mr. Smith have been removed. I expect it would take quite a bit of time to resurface the information from history pages, unless someone has those skills. It also appears that clearly referenced material is regularly removed from the primary Wiki page. Sliceofmiami (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it "controversial information" or defamatory, or just nonsense? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that those who posted the information did so with verifiable references, while my guess is that those who removed the information wanted to believe it was nonsense. The main page has been marked more than once with NPOV. Strangely, the history shows that the discussion page itself (not just the main page) appears to have been tampered with. Sliceofmiami (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please point to three edits where wp:v information was added and subsequently removed? All of the removals I made had nothing that would meet wp:v --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example from the edit history of the Discussion page that shows someone had removed information from the discussion page -- "(restoring material deleted from talk page (deleting other user's comments is not allowed))." Please look over the edit history and report back what you find. It would be great if you could figure out how to restore the Discussion page. Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That was singularly unhelpful. First, you didn't indicate the edit, you force us to look back in the history to find it. Second, there's no indication of who deleted the material. Third, we were discussing the article, not the talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep up, Mr. Gorlitz. Read above, "I've researched through some of the Discussion history, and it appears that most of the severely controversial information against Calvary Chapel and Mr. Smith have been removed." With that as a reminder, please take a few moments to yourself, research the article, post the controversial information that is validly referenced, and that which is not validly referenced. This is not going to be an easy task. Sliceofmiami (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be rude. I asked you to provide some examples of your accusations. You didn't. So are you lying--fabricating these instances--or is it happening? If it's happening, please provide three specific examples. Thanks. You're the one making the accusations. You need to back your claims. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sliceofmiami, you know it is possible to link to specific edits in the edit history like this: this edit was made on 27 February by Sliceofmiami on the talk page. Just in case you didn't know. Ltwin (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ltwin, I didn't know, but that doesn't fix the problem of losing several hundreds of edits that were available on the page. If you know how to restore, please do so. I'm trying to find someone that can restore. Mr. Gorlitz, you seem to not understand the original statement. Please go to the top of your web browser and click "View History." Find the entries that describe "restoring material deleted from talk page (deleting other user's comments is not allowed)." Sliceofmiami (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying Sliceofmiami is: Show us what you are talking about because I for one do not understand. Show us these edits that have removed information from the talk page. Ltwin (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Y'all need to learn how to indent.

Why would you restore edits that were reverted for a good reason? I'm not the editors who removed the edit, but the rule on talk pages is not to touch another editor's comments. They're not article pages.

Plus, the location of history depends entirely on the skin used.

Plus, I will add the edit you requested to be restored, but the issue was resolved a long time ago. The section the editor, Victoria h, raised, was dealt-with. Also, I can't restore it because of the way the editors on this page more than three years ago dealt with the issue. Now if you would be so good as to keep the discussion about the article and not about its talk page. If you could please go to the article and give us three examples of reverts that removed "controversial" or "critical" information, I'd like to see them. I am not talking about the discussion, or more correctly, talk page, but the article itself. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

cleanup tag

Some of this article sounds like it was coppied from a brochure.

"Calvary Chapel recognizes that people are not defined by their attire."

"...going wherever the text leads,..."

"To sum this up more appropriately, Calvary Chapel lives/teaches the word of God. Nothing more; nothing less."

One would have a hard time finding a relgious group that claims to not live/teach according to its sacred scriptures. These statements are obviously not NPOV.

Under "Practices" it says: "The frequency with which communion is taken and the practice of other sacraments varies."

This is unclear whether "other sacraments" means baptism or something else. Don't most protestant groups only have those two sacraments? Some charismatic groups also accepting foot washing.

The opening paragraphs need to be reorderd and made coherent. Is the "revival" refering to the Jesus movement or the Calvary chapel movement?

Not surprisingly the "references" section is empty.

I'm adding the cleanup tag. --Victoria h 03:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is not the edit that I am trying to restore, it is the pages that were deleted. Victoria tried to help out when someone deleted content -- which is the issue. It is not just a single edit, like you tried to help out with, it is a systemic issue of removing content. I don't wish to restore a single comment by a single user, that is not the point. I found a COI entry that seems to have been deleted, and just as you don't know, I also do not know how to restore information. I'll just restore the section. as a new section I suppose. Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sliceofmiami that would not be the way to do it. I have reconstructed talk pages before, but it takes alot of work. If you're serious you need to go through the edit history and individually restore every edit to the place in the talk page where it was before. Do not just make it a new section. That would just be stupid. Ltwin (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I can shed some light on the Victoria issue because I was the one who removed those comments. (Bringing back some fun memories all the way back from January 2006!) Being new to wikipedia, I had seen the list of 'to-dos' as a checklist; when reviewing the article it seemed like the concerns had been met. At that time, I did not know that items should not be removed from the talk pages even if the items no longer applied. If you search through the talk pages you will see that the deleted content was replaced and I added an apology: "You had sent me a message asking "please do not delete user's comments from the talk page of articles." (This was sent to an IP because it was before I had created a user login.) I just wanted to apologize and explain my actions. I had noticed your comments on the talk page in question and it appeared to me that they had all been addressed in subsequent revisions of the article. Being a newbie to wikipedia, I thought it made sense to remove the comments since they no longer seemed relevant. It was not my intention to offend you in any way, and I apologize." There is no systematic removal of talk page content going on and any "appear[ance] that most of the severely controversial information against Calvary Chapel and Mr. Smith have been removed" would be inaccurate. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

LtWin & Mr. Gorlitz, just to show that Victoria's restoration was not the only problem, here is yet another undo because someone removed information from the page. "11:36, 13 July 2008 71.203.159.204 (talk) (73,845 bytes) (Undid revision 225315462 by 24.1.47.198 (talk) please stop removing others' contributions to the discussion) (undo)" Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, the removal by 24.1.47.198 was a removal by him of his own content. That user had a habit of using the talk page as a way of editing/re-editing content they wanted to add to the main page until consensus was reached. Again, not any indication of some internal CC wiki-conspiracy. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(This section was removed. Removing information that is not your own is not allowed. Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC))

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Conflict of Interest

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.

---

Based on feedback from an outside editor, I've tagged the article for conflict of interest. In addition to frequent reversion of well sourced material without discussion, I note the following about this article.

1. The Calvary Chapel article contains a preponderance of material from Calvary Chapel itself, linked to web-sites owned and operated by Calvary Chapel.

2. The preponderance of links to other web pages are to sites owned and operated by Calvary Chapel.

3. The preponderance of source material and links in the article are to promotional materials produced by members of Calvary Chapel.

4. The edit history of editors demonstrates a pattern of removing material that might be perceived as critical or inconsistent with a "first person" view of a member of this church movement who adheres to and defends its beliefs.

5. The tone of the article has often slipped into a "first person" tone consistent with members of this church movement or with someone sympathetic to this movement.

While all of this might provide a reasonable starting point for developing a good article about Calvary Chapel, I think it is not sustainable as a de facto edit policy enforced by editors who are members of this church or who share similar beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvanduyse (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(area restored by Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC). Please restore other information as it is found.)

LOL this is so funny

How long have any of you been on Wikipedia? Let me introduce you to this talk pages' archive - Talk:Calvary Chapel/Archive 1. Have fun. All of the discussions are there. The archive box has been at the top of this page (under the talk page banner) this whole time. See WP: Talk page#Subpages and archiving for more info. Ltwin (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Thanks for the pointer, LtWin. So it doesn't change the fact that other people have noted that this page has been scrubbed of user comments in the past, but it does help me resurrect (probably a loaded word in this churchy context) what the prior editors were experiencing. I won't be re-adding any pages. Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What does it matter? If the article is in good shape, let the talk page editors be warned and move on. Do you have any issues with the article? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is not in good shape. As users have been identifying for several years, the article appears to be a marketing campaign for Calvary Chapel. It seems to be protected by users who appear to have a Conflict_of_interest and Neutral_point_of_view. Further discussion in the NPOV area. The article has not yet been re-tagged as COI. Sliceofmiami (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we've established that there is no 'scrubbing' of the talk page, just a couple of inadvertant edits done without malice. I wondered what all the hubbub was about - I had no idea you guys weren't aware of the archive section or I would have pointed it out, too. Hopefully this has given everyone a good chuckle. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually we established that this page is regularly reviewed, and the pages are regularly scrubbed. I'm not suggesting malice, that is your word. But I do appreciate that you helped me understand the archive function. Here's another quote from the archives "214 words were deleted in your edit, encompassing multiple authors. This is a serious edit that needs to be discussed with the other editors on the talk page first." I am not saying that I agree or disagree, only that the page has had it's share of 'editors.' Sliceofmiami (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This statement seemed to imply that there was some malice occurring: "As I look through the edit history, there seems to be several attempts from those who appear to be 'outsiders' to edit the page, only to be reverted by those who appear to be 'insiders.'" Wikipedia is about being reviewed, re-reviewed, and vetted. The 214 words that were deleted were on the page itself (not the talk page) as part of a brand new editor (me) trying to improve things. "Being bold", as it were. Is that an issue? 66.177.182.13 (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Can 66.177.182.13 please identify himself or herself? You have identified yourself as a fourth party in these exchanges, and made rash statements about how you were involved years ago -- then show us that is true. Sliceofmiami (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I still do not understand what you mean by "identifying"? And I also do not understand what was 'rash'? 66.177.182.13 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute, take 2

I want the neutrality dispute tag off this page. There has been no evidence of any POV statements. Sliceofmiami just added a POV statement in stating that it's a "self-proclaimed" evangelical association. Other evangelical associations (most noted Baptists and The Vineyard) consider them to be evangelical. So could the editor please refrain from adding POV statements?

Also, please list areas or comments that need to be cleaned-up, or just clean them up. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Gorlitz, I am trying to clean it up, and you just reverted an edit. I changed a word to reflect the referenced article, and supplied a note -- "The provided reference is self proclaiming the association. If someone wishes to revert the wording, please add valid external non-affiliated, non-COI, NPOV references" and you reverted the changes. I described the actions required to make it not self proclaimed (add valid external non-affiliated, non-COI, NPOV references), and your revert simply says "It's not "self-proclaimed", many other evangelicals see it that way too." Provide references. This has happened to other edits to this page, my own and other writers. Sliceofmiami (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Please indent. Put a colon in front of your comments. If you don't, it's assumed you're starting a new topic. Two colons means response to a response, etc.

You provided no reference. I did add a valid source: you're the only person who thinks they're a "self-proclaimed" evangelical association. I don't have to have to provide a reference to revert an unreferenced statement. Nice try though: turning the tables. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Gorlitz, there is one referenced article, it is reference #1, and it is from Calvary Chapel Sliceofmiami (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the self-referencing, it's going to be challenging to overcome that. Who knows better what CC believes than CC? Other religious movements probably suffer from the same problem (the Vineyard page is an example.) The mere fact that CC is used as a reference to a statement does not by definition make the statement non-neutral.

SoM: I see from other edit history that you are new to wikipedia. At some point we were all new. If you see issues, bring them up and work through the consensus. Be prepared to bring verifiable, authoritative sources (note: not blogs.) Provide examples, not just vague generalizations. I recommend that if you see an item that needs a reference, do not simply edit the item as you did with "self proclaimed", go search out the proof yourself rather than telling other people to do it. This would help avoid any appearance of passive aggressiveness. As it stands, the "self proclaimed" addition is weasel wording, which we try to avoid here.

As previously mentioned by myself and another editor, I sense bias on your part, which makes your claims for "NPOV" seen disingenuous. I do not see a focus on neutral editing, but more of a focus on issues that cast CC in a negative light, bringing up issues of conspiracy, selectively quoting or misquoting references, and even throwing out the term 'cult'. I fear the result will be that your edits are going to be viewed with possible skepticism and a higher degree of criticality (just as edits by me would be.) For the record (in case it was not already clear), I am a CC attendee. But I know (and Pastor Chuck agrees in one of his books) that CC is not perfect and not above criticism. So if there are ways to improve the article that are balanced, properly reference, and do not show undue weight, bring them on. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, Mr. CC Attender. In terms of "Who knows better what CC believes" compared to what CC says they believe, this is the point of the NPOV. In part, self reference should be identified as self reference, which was the only point. Please either change the line or add an an additional external reference -- "If someone wishes to revert the wording, please add valid external non-affiliated, non-COI, NPOV references." Unfortunately, the updater reverted instead of adding value. Sliceofmiami (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the reference is completely unnecessary, but okay. It wasn't too difficult to find one. It's been added. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

On 'cult', it was not a word that was (as you described) "thrown out" without some research and verifiable references. Google "calvary chapel cult" and you wind up with 27 thousand references. Google "calvary chapel" and there are 700 thousand references. 4% of Google referenced documents demonstrate some association between the words. Some are likely sympathetic to Calvary Chapel, some are known to not be sympathetic (and have been referenced, and of course reverted). By the way, this research started with a much more benign word of "denomination" which was violently dismissed by one user, which brought up "new religious movement" which was also violently dismissed. Sliceofmiami (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That 4% is undoubtedly made up of many blogs and non-scholarly references. Wikipedia's undue weight policy certainly applies. I also don't recall any 'violent' dismissal of denomination or new religious movement. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

New Religious Movement references.

• Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin (1993). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Active New Religions, Sects, and Cults. Rosen Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0823915057. page 43.
• Chryssides, George D. (2001). Historical dictionary of new religious movements. The Scarecrow Press, Inc.. ISBN 0-8108-4095-2. page 68. Sliceofmiami (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on Sliceofmiami, are you really trying to say that Calvary Chapel isn't evangelical? Based on what it believes it is evangelical. You may not like its view on church polity, but that has nothing to do with whether its evangelical or not. Ltwin (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

LtWin, I think you have finally found my point. Wiki isn't about what you or I believe to be true -- in fact, I've not identified my own affiliation with Calvary Chapel because it is not material. It seems your question goes some way in identifying the NPOV situation. I have only requested that the page reflects that it is an internal reference ("We are an evangelical group" would be sufficient), or that an external reference be provided (one that meets the criteria that you have placed on my changes). Based on what Calvary Chapel believes, it is also a New Religious Movement. You made me find additional external references, which I've done. Sliceofmiami (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually disagree with that approach. Wikipedia's COI policy strongly suggests that if you do have an affiliation, it is good practice to disclose it. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh give me a break. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck its a duck. However, if you want to wikilawyer, I'll oblige. Statements about what a group believes from those groups themselves are reliable sources because they are the best source to find out what they believe. If you don't trust their sources, then you're free to question all you want. However, unless you have a reliable source which says the belief statements do not accurately reflect what they actually believe, its original research which is another Wikipedia violation. Ltwin (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Call it a duck, then, and we'll be fine. "We are an evangelical group" is sufficient. Sliceofmiami (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would the article need to say "Calvary Chapel says its an evangelical group" when all that is needed is "Calvary Chapel is an evangelical group"? Obviously, if they are labeled an evangelical group its because they claim to be an evangelical group! However, if your goal is to imply that they are not an evangelical group then the statement "Calvary Chapel says its an evangelical group" does just that. However, that is your pov and that violates the npov principle. Ltwin (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ltwin. It would also be weasel wording. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree or disagree all you want, you haven't even identified yourself as a unique user, 66.177.182.13. Ltwin, the Peoples Temple Christian Church Full Gospel is also an Evangelical organization. Sliceofmiami (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sliceofmiami, can you point to a policy saying that user:66.177.182.13 is a second class editor because he doesn't have an id? Nope you cant because there isn't one. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Stop the ad hominem attacks please. About your reference to Peoples Temple Christian Church Full Gospel, that has absolutely nothing to do with this article. This article is about Calvary Chapel. What is your point? Ltwin (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Using a login pseudonym does not prove that someone is a unique user, either. Both types of users are welcome here. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Lieutenant, the Captain said no more lawyering. Oh, no, wait, that was you that said no more lawyering. And yes, the inflated attacks are not welcome -- please stop. Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

SoM: please be civil, assume good faith, refrain from personal attacks, and recognize that IPs are human, too. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Christianity Today article that is critical of Moses Model

Referenced article discussing dangers of Moses Model.

From Mr. Smith

“We take the model from the work that God established in the nation of Israel,” Smith says. “Moses was the leader appointed by God. He took 70 men, and they assisted Moses in overseeing the mundane types of issues that developed within the nation. There was the priesthood under Aaron.” Similarly, he says, “we have assistant pastors, and they look to me as the senior pastor. I’m responsible to the Lord. We have a board of elders. We go over the budget. The people recognize that God has called me to be the leader of this fellowship. We are not led by a board of elders. I feel my primary responsibility is to the Lord. And one day I’m going to answer to him, not to a board of elders.”

From Christianity Today

Critics say this “Moses model” produces pastors who refuse to let their authority be challenged. Such pastors often resist accountability measures such as financial audits and providing detailed financial statements. Some curious Calvary Chapel attendees, who have sought financial information from their churches, say they were ostracized.

Other churchgoers say Calvary Chapel pastors also don’t like to be questioned. During the investigation for this article, Smith cautioned CT’s reporter: “The Lord warns, ‘Don’t touch my anointed. Do my prophet no harm.’ I think that you are trying to do harm to the work of God. I surely wouldn’t want to be in your shoes.”

those close to Chuck Smith would rather wait until his tenure has closed before addressing any problems.

-Day of Reckoning, Rob Moll, Christianity Today

So in reference to the Calvary Chapel article, we could add:

"Christianity Today has identified how churches that adhere to the Moses Model are often resistant to accountability. In response, Mr. Smith aligns himself to a prophet to defend his position." http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/march/7.53.html?start=1 http://regenerated.us/is-calvary-chapel-theologically-sound/ http://diaryofabrokenvessel.com/my-reasoning-calvary-critical/ Please review and add value to this quote so it can be incorporated into the article. Sliceofmiami (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Change to make more neutral (defend changed to support):

"Christianity Today has identified how churches that adhere to the Moses Model are often resistant to accountability. In response, Mr. Smith aligns himself to a prophet to support his position." http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/march/7.53.html?start=1 http://regenerated.us/is-calvary-chapel-theologically-sound/ http://diaryofabrokenvessel.com/my-reasoning-calvary-critical/ Sliceofmiami (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say that CT is not a scholarly reference. Additionally, the article makes many claims but consistently refuses to cite sources. The really interesting thing about the article is this quote: "Eskridge says Calvary Chapel's influence on mainstream evangelicalism has been massive." 66.177.182.13 (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles do not have to be scholarly, just verifiable. That's the beauty of WP:V --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks, Walter. That's made me recognize my own bias for the more scholarly research. As for verifiability of the article, does the fact that the article itself makes reference to 'anonymous sources' detract from its verifiability? (That's an honest and not a trick question! My thought is that there is probably a more verifiable source for the information and I would appreciate your viewpoints.)

As the article stands right now, this statement feels odd: "As a result of micromanaging church elders and board members, Chuck Smith". I think you mean that Chuck Smith was fed up with feeling micromanaged in his earlier denomination and felt led to go the independent board route (which I think is referenced in one of his books and other sources), but the sentence could also be read that Chuck Smith was micromanaging elders and board members. I can take a crack at re-wording in the next few days. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

From my understanding, when Chuck arrived at the new church, it was still a Four Square congregation. I assume that has some sort of denominational oversight. It could be that he preferred their church governance or insisted on a specific form. The CT article isn't clear on that point. Nothing else I've heard or read on the subject is clear on it either. If you go to the CT article and search for micromanag you should find the Moses section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

First, full disclosure: you had me very curious about the Foursquare aspect so I've only skimmed, but not completely read, "Chuck Smith: A Memoir of Grace" to find some answers. From what I have read, Pastor Chuck did in fact pastor a Foursquare congregation in Costa Mesa for a period of time (p. 138). Then he resigned from Foursquare (ICFG) to help plant a church in Corona (p. 150). It was after leaving this church that he would go to what we now know as Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa (p. 160). I do not see where it says that this was or was not a Foursquare fellowship, only that "[w]hen not in the mountains, Floyd and his wife, Diane, still lived in Costa Mesa attending a small church on the corner of Walnut and Church Street. Their pastor, Reverend Nelson, had not intended to start a church, but one thing led to another and he found himself in charge of a small congregation. (p. 157.)" Given that Pastor Chuck had previously pastored some other church in Costa Mesa (an ICFG fellowship) and that my (admittedly quick) research suggests their pastors are referred to as 'Pastor' rather than 'Reverend', it seems likely that CCCM was not an ICFG church. The book also mentions that the church had a board that hired him but I haven't found details on whether he preferred its existing structure or built a new one. Clearly I need to read this thing cover to cover. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

External Links

I like the link cleanup. I think these still deserve to be in 'other organizations' list since they do fit that category:

• The Word for Today - Official Site
• Maranatha! Music
• Calvary Chapel Bible College66.177.182.13 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Smith and the 1981 non-rapture?

Can anyone shed some light on why the Chuck Smith 1981 rapture report has not been incorporated into the Wikipage? Here's one reference: http://calvarychapel.pbworks.com/1981 Sliceofmiami (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's already in the Eschatology section... 66.177.182.13 (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This makes no sense

This sentence in the criticism section makes no sense:

"As a result of micromanaging church elders and board members[citation needed], Chuck Smith used "an independent board of elders"[citation needed]when he took the senior pastor role at Calvary Chapel, however Smith has written that "senior pastors should be answerable to God, not to a denominational hierarchy or board of elders".[citation needed]"

This seems like the beginning of one sentence was just added on to an already complete sentence. Ltwin (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is all a redaction of the CT article. No citations needed. Probably a run-on-sentence that should be split. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Gorlitz, I'm flabbergasted. You spent enough time to revert my changes (that I made because the sentence was not sourced and didn't make any sense), then you just removed the reverted changes -- AFTER you reverted? IMNSHO, you spend too much time trying to revert, Walter. But I will persist for the sake of the other brother... Sliceofmiami (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'll take it all back... just keep making the article more NPOV. Keep up the good work, Walter. Sliceofmiami (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I reverted your edit, I think it was Ltwin's edit. In any case, I think you edited it afterwards to be more intelligible and in a better location. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wiki says you reverted my edit, then deleted the section you reverted. I'll receive that as an apology. Sliceofmiami (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Citation requests are removed -- "article written as an advertisement for Calvary Chapel?"

I tried to spend some time requesting citations on the main page, and they are now gone -- not only my own requests for Citations, but also other people's requests, that have dated back for two years. The purpose was to be able to remove the overall NPOV, so each section could be reviewed for NPOV independently, as requested by someone.

The removals go a long way in supporting the position that the article is not NPOV, but instead an "article written as an advertisement for Calvary Chapel," to quote another user.

Why were the requests removed without adding the Citations? Sliceofmiami (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed citation requests because I removed the material that needed those citations. Therefore, the citation requests were no longer needed. Ltwin (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Smith believes he is accountable only to God

Chuck Smith believes he is accountable only to God. http://calvarychapel.pbworks.com/Calvary-Chapel-Authority-Structure

http://regenerated.us/is-calvary-chapel-theologically-sound/ "Conflicts with leadership at Calvary Chapels are nearly always resolved by the person making the charge being slandered and driven out of the church." http://calvarychapel.pbworks.com/Calvary-Chapel-Authority-Structure http://calvarychapel.pbworks.com/Conflicts http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/october/14.128.html http://surphside.blogspot.com/2009/05/calvary-chapel-fires-paul-smith-brother.html http://whorechurch.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/calvary-chapel-a-primer-on-the-dangers-of-non-accountability/ http://whorechurch.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/calvary-chapel-a-primer-on-the-dangers-of-non-accountability/ http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?id=2176&option=com_content&task=view

Someone reverted this addition on the Calvary page. This statement is verifiable. The additional quote was added while searching for reference articles. Please include additional references to satisfy everyone's questions on verifiability. Please also include any contrary positions, and include references for those as well. Sliceofmiami (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that I reverted it and the comments would explain why. Please stop trying to make CC look like a cult. It's not. The same could be said of the Pope and several other leaders.

Your references don't back your statements. The Wiki doesn't ever state what you have written: "Chuck Smith believes he is accountable only to God". If you can show a writing from Chuck that states "I am only accountable to God and no one else", then you would have a source. If you have a WP:V source that say that too, you've got it made. However, Chuck believes that he is accountable to God. So do I. So should any Christian, particularly evangelicals.

Your refs do not meet WP:V as they are wikis and blogs. The CT article talks about a local congregation battle and it actually contradicts your point: "Calvary Chapel Outreach Fellowships (CCOF), an organization formed to maintain accountability for Calvary Chapel pastors...". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Walter, please look over the articles. Help me find other verifiable references. Here's a telling quote about the leadership accountability structure of Calvary Chapel: "Ritchie says the accountability system has limits. It is voluntary for both the overseer and the pastors." And another: "Other churchgoers say Calvary Chapel pastors also don't like to be questioned. During the investigation for this article, Smith cautioned CT's reporter: "The Lord warns, 'Don't touch my anointed. " I'm not sure how much more clear Mr. Smith could be about being questioned. These are his own words. Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Full Disclosure

I asked yesterday, but you seem to have missed it. Could you please disclose your affiliations, if any? I'm trying to understand why you're so anti-CC when it seems you've never stepped inside one, nor read any of their material first-hand. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Walter, I did not intend to ignore you. I understand your request. Let me meditate on this. I've asked several times why the IP user has not identified himself, and the response was not hospitable. I'll get back to you. Sliceofmiami (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've asked what is meant by 'identifying yourself' and have not received a concrete response. I'm not sure what is meant by that. Ltwin seemed to think it was some kind of ad hominem attack. If I assume good faith, however, it may be that you are asking me to reveal my real-life identify and may not be aware of the anonymity policies of Wikipedia, particularly those around outing. Or if it is a request to prove the veracity of some of my earlier statements, that would run afoul of AGF in that it implicitly questions my truthfulness. I have been candid about my own affiliation here and let my earlier contributions stand on their own merit. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

New Religious Movement references

That Calvary Chapel is referenced as a "New Religious Movement."

• Richardson, James T. "Clinical and Personality Assessment of Participants in New Religions." Published in "International Journal for the Psychology of Religion," Volume 5, Issue 3 July 1995. Pages 145 - 170.
• Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Active New Religions, Sects, and Cults. Rosen Publishing Group. 1993.
• Chryssides, George D. Historical dictionary of new religious movements. The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 2001.
• This citation is not NRM, only clarifies Religion and Denomination. "In each religion there are a few proponents who, in order to differentiate their religion from others, have advanced the idea that their particular religion is not, in fact, a religion at all.... Among Christians, the Calvary Chapel denomination is known for advancing this argument. " which is true, Calvary calls it "relationship." http://www.adherents.com/classify.html

Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a movement advancing their particular religion: Christianity. They are not a new religion. No one could reasonably argue against CC's involvement in the Jesus movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s.

And as a side point, since CC started in the mid-sixties and Gulliksen started the Vineyards more than a decade later. Wimber, was a CC pastor until 1982 and joined Gulliksen in his religious movement. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, did anyone happen to notice that this page is already referenced in "B-Class New religious movements articles" and "Mid-importance New religious movements articles" Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That does prove your conjecture. It simply means that some other editor once thought it should be part of that working body. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Walter, I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. There are references in the International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, and hundreds of other sources, that other people believe Calvary Chapel is part of the New Religious Movements. Have you even read what an NRM is? Sliceofmiami (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you be able to list the hundreds of other sources? I have ordered photocopies of the International Journal for the Psychology of Religion referenced above to see what it specifically says about CC and would also like to examine the other sources. (As one person, I probably can't make it through the hundreds of sources, but at least the group of us could try to review them if we desire.) Thanks!

As a side note, I did a google search on "International Journal for the Psychology of Religion" "Calvary Chapel" (note quotes to force exact phrasing logic) and find only 6 references, 2 are the same article referenced above and the other 4 seem to be references to that same article, so effectively only 1 IJPR reference to CC. If you have some others, please share them as I would like to review. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I finally had an opportunity to review the photocopy reference of the IJPR essay mentioned above. The article mentions Calvary Chapel a single time, and only in the context of focusing on a commune that grew out of the CC movement and to which many members returned when the commune disbanded. It is the commune that is one of the subjects of the essay, not CC. Any statement that the essay references CC as a NRM would be inaccurate - in the single instance of reference, CC is described as a "conservative, nondenominational church." 66.177.182.247 (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You have on several occasions alluded to or outright indicated that you think that CC is a cult. As such, when I see "new religious movement" from you, I think you're equating it with a new religion not to be equated with other Christian denominations. What I think of when I consider CC a new religious movement is that they caused a revival and renewal in Christianity. I have not read what a new religious movement means though. Looking at it now, I feel justified in my suspicion:

"Scholars studying the sociology of religion have almost unanimously adopted this term as a neutral alternative to the word 'cult'."

I assume that cult here is again not the religiously neutral term meant to describe all forms of religious worship but the words with the negative connotation of being in error in some way. So now it's my turn to say "I'm not sure what you are trying to get at" but without commenting on the editor, I can safely assume what you mean. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on references

I'm not sure this is clear to all editors so I'll state it here: Wikipedia has rules on what is an is not considered a reliable source. I suggest that all editors review those rules prior to suggesting any source should or should not be considered. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding link to noticeboard discussion that includes opinions by admins and others regarding some references that have been recently reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Calvary_Chapel 66.177.182.247 (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to archive

I would like to ask User:MiszaBot I to automatically archive some of the older messages. Pretty much all of the content on this page other than the section above. Are there any objections? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not see a compelling reason to archive. Why do you wish to archive? Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it's a bit too long. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Bio dispute has been archived

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive87. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Citing sources

I understand why the anonymous editor is removing refs to a radio programme or audio archive, it's because it's not WP:V. When we cite a book, we give a page number so that editors don't have to read the entire tome to determine if the citation is correct or not. Similarly, a radio programme must be cited correctly so that the reference can be found correctly. Wikipedia:Citation templates has the list of citation templates including {{cite episode}}.

My talk page is not the correct place to discuss issues related to this article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Then change it the way it needs to be, Gorlitz. Do your part in making this page not so POV. Sliceofmiami (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

How can this page be protected against IP user editing? We've had enough disagreements without a dynamic IP address contributing to additional issues. By the way, Walter, I just looked at the web page you referenced, and it says that the reference only needs to be "cite video" to be correct. That certainly didn't warrant a removal. Sliceofmiami (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You would need to make a request on the admin pages to 1) prove that it has been under constant attack from vandals, which it hasn't, 2) you would need to indicate why it needs to be protected, and 3) for how long. If you can't make a case, it wouldn't be protected or semi-protected. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I just changed it with the cite video reference. Please update as required. It is the first time I've been forced to do something like that. Let's see if the IP user will roam somewhere else.

In terms of the IP user, I noticed a few high traffic pages were protected against anonymous postings. It really doesn't stop anything, since the IP user could just make a single use account to change whatever. The same user changed another page, and unfortunately never gives reasons for the changes. I posted a note on the IP talk page, but the person never acknowledged the request. Now he seems to be using a new IP address -- don't you love dynamic addressing... Sliceofmiami (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This page is neither high-traffic nor is it important. We can patrol the pages adequately. The anonymous editor just removed the entire section on the return of Christ and I reverted. Don't bother placing warnings. The IP addresses are different with each edit.

• 66.177.182.* are Comcast Cable in Jacksonville, Florida.

This is the editor who mostly knows the rules of Wikipedia and enforces them. The following also made some edits recently as well.

• 75.36.71.91 AT&T DSL in Westminster, California.
• 83.67.91.52 Freedom to Surf DSL in London, England.

Regardless, the page doesn't need semi-protection unless it starts to happen regularly. You can always apply to have it protected and let the admins decide. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the IP editor that the souces provided are inadequate - including the .ra link. We don't allow cites to YouTube, this is even worse. I have asked for additional input at WP:BLPN. CIreland (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

CIreland, the link is to a radio broadcast with Chuck Smith's voice. It doesn't matter where radio broadcast is stored. If you wish to put it on a different server, then download it and put it on a different server. Sliceofmiami (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not the point at all, if your a freelance journalist then fine but that is not what wikipedia editors do, we report the reliable reports of notable events. It also does totally matter where it is stored and who stored it. Sometimes I tire of such issues, get the strongest reliable citations you can find to support your desired additions with rubbish claims and suchlike citations forget about it. The living subjects that we add content to are people that we respect and protect using quality control such as this. As I say often...get yourself a blog where you can add what ever you want and pay your own libel defamation lawyers.Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, you should not be " respecting and protecting" the pages of people on wiki. ("Respect denotes both a positive feeling of esteem for a person or other entity, and also specific actions and conduct representative of that esteem.") Your goal on wiki should be to provide adequately sourced neutral material. Sounds like you are not able to be neutral. Good thing we can't vote people off the island. Sliceofmiami (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Calvinism/Arminianism

The section says nothing about what Calvary Chapel itself believes, but only what Chuck Smith has written about. The Calvary Chapel website says that it is against emphasizing doctrinal differences, and claims it itself is not a denomination. Calvary Chapel does not take a position on Calvinism or Arminianism, but Chuck Smith has written on these things. There is a difference if it is true that the individual churches have freedom to have varied beliefs on these things. Could this be clarified in the article? Kristamaranatha (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is since there is no such thing as Calvary Chapel apart from Chuck Smith. Smith's published opinion on Calvinism is therefore the stand of Calvary Chapel. Chuck Smith does take a clear position against Calvinism and has removed pastors from Calvary Chapel because they were/are Calvinists. There were also purges at the Bible College removing Calvinists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.251.204 (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

new section. Same old nonsense

First, you just copied and pasted a large section from http://www.rickross.com/reference/calvary/calvary5.html and that's copyright violation, even if you put it into quotes (which you didn't close). Second, you start the section by heading it Cult like practices (which again should read "Cult-like practices" and all of the experts deny they're cult-like. That's horribly biased and I slice of miami should stop pushing their own agenda on this group. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC) And then there's the lack of WP:V in the article which is self-published. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Walter, I did not actually add anything to the article that didn't already exist. Someone had put semi-quotes in the wiki article, but took the information out of context. I just tried to fix the invalid quoted material. Second, I tried to fix what was a very difficult to read "Criticisms" section by breaking it up into sub sections. The article as it read was difficult to follow. It appeared that someone was trying to spin, but spin very poorly. I think you should try to make the article a little more unbiased (and with an understanding that some of the experts claim "they're" cult-like) instead of pushing your own agenda... and relax a little. Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: I did rename the "cult like practices" section on behalf of you. Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I recognize now what happened and I really shouldn't be blaming you. I haven't particularly liked the section. It's labelled "cult-like" and the accusation isn't really supported in the section nor is it appropriate for the group. The copyvio did have to be removed though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate your honesty and your apology. Thanks, Walter. Blessings to you tonight... Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel has been criticized because they themselves criticize others

Does anyone know why this was removed?

• "Calvary Chapel has been critized because they themselves criticize others. They say Calvary Chapel has attacked denominations, Seventh-day Adventists, Pentecostals, Catholics, Lutherans, and word of faith teachers. [1]"

There are many additional references for this position. Here's one where Chuck Smith & his group telling a caller to not talk to Calvinists. The caller is told to "back off a little bit" because Calvinists are "kind of like cultists" -- but wait, doesn't the Bible say something about fellowship with believers? Calvary's position is that Calvinists are cultists, not brothers. The reviewer identifies, "Isn't it the cults that tell people to avoid other people?" -- http://www.vimeo.com/6886977

For disclosure, I am not supporting Calvinism. I only have an issue with Chuck Smith & group saying that someone should "back away" from another Christian group. Sliceofmiami (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The charge that they "criticize others" can be said for all Christian denominations and for that matter any religious denomination. They all criticize one another! This isn't encyclopedic. Ltwin (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your position is not neutral. "All Christian denominations" do not denounce other Christian denominations. However, the non-neutral position isn't what is important. Verifiable references have been provided, to include Chuck Smith's own expose on how Calvinists are cultists. Even with your position, you don't believe that a blanket statement that Calvinists are "kind of like cultists" is significant coming from a preacher? Second, according to prior arguments, Calvary is not to be referred to as a denomination. Sliceofmiami (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sliceofmiami, your position is not neutral. I would dare say that your position is also uninformed. I would say that your position is outright biased against CC. Perhaps you need to read some first-hand CC sources rather than only reading sources who are anti-CC. I have never heard CC criticizing or denouncing any Christian denominations. So to say the least, it's not a common stance. I have heard Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics regularly state that they are the only true church. CC doesn't do that. I have heard some fundamentalist churches say the same thing about their way of practising the faith. And your undocumented statement is likely taken out-of-context. I have heard R. C. Sproul, a "reformed" (a.k.a Calvinist) pastor and theologian, and his fellow reformed pastors, be pretty cult-like in their adherence to the five points of Calvinism. That doesn't stop me from considering him to be a good teacher.

For the record, I have never been a member of a CC church. As you can see from my talk page, I have aligned myself with an Anabaptist denomination. I have been a member of two Lutheran congregations, an Anglican congregation, and most recently a Fellowship Baptist congregation. My only association with CC is that I have attended a service on five different occasions over my life, and an acquaintance of mine is a pastor of a CC. So what is your relationship to CC? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A few notes. "Here's one where Chuck Smith & his group telling a caller to not talk to Calvinists." Incorrect; the exact statement made was that they "I wouldn't necessarily recommend arguing with [this person]" (emphasis added). Also, it wasn't Chuck Smith that made the statement about cultists, it was someone named Brian.

Additionally, from "What Calvary Chapel Teaches" (What We Do Not Believe chapter) at http://biblefacts.org/church/WCCT.pdf: "At Calvary Chapel, we reject some popular doctrines of some Christian groups because we believe them to be in error Scripturally. This does not mean that we will not fellowship with those holding these views, it simply means that such views are outside the boundaries of what constitutes a Calvary Chapel church." (emphasis added) 66.177.182.13 (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Walter, actually, that is not my quote. It is from a history page on this Calvary page. I was wondering why it was removed. In terms of church membership, you have never even been invited to become a member of a CC church. CC doesn't accept memberships. Did you happen to listen to the video? Sliceofmiami (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This quote was removed because someone felt like it didn't apply to their church -- "I removed the following "Calvary Chapel itself is highly critical of other churches, and sometimes inherits the reputation as trying to portray themselves as the "one true church". I attend Calvary Chapel, and while it is agreeable that we do look down upon churches with false doctrines (especially prosperity gospel churches), I don't recognize "one true church" as a valid statement. Someone is obviously sabotaging this entry because they disagree with CC. ~~Iamvery~~" Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"One true church" might refer to the Church universal, a.k.a. Church militant and church triumphant. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not sure. I'm not up on what "Iamvery" identified. The problem was that it was removed because "Iamvery" didn't feel like he recognized the referenced statement as true. The statement or something similar should be reinserted in the article, with the references cited of course. Sliceofmiami (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this video reference and Chuck Smith's position about Calvinists (that Chuck Smith believes Calvinists are "kind of like cultists") should be in the Doctrine area, since someone else has an unreferenced quote about CC "striking a balance" between Calvinism and Arminianism. Sliceofmiami (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There are enough quotes on this subject that it's not possible to deny it. Calvary Chapel has declared themselves the church of Philadelphia and the other churches the church of Laodicea. That is to say other churches are apostate and they preserve the truth. http://calvarychapel.pbworks.com/w/page/13146594/CC-attacks-other-churches

Unfortunately a blog is not considered to be a reliable source. Please find some reliable sources. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Walter, the page I listed is not a BLOG, it is a Wiki page and it lists the sources which are directly from Larry Taylor former head of Calvary Chapel Bible College. If Wiki pages and direct quotes from the source are not sufficient, then what is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.251.204 (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiki pages are are not considered to be reliable sources either. Open wikis even less so. See the reliable sources page for what is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

See also?

In addition to what was written in the revert comment about removing The Vineyard from the See also section, the guideline indicates "However, whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Indeed, a good article might not require a 'See also' section at all.". To be fair, I'm not sure what asking people to also check-out Association of Vineyard Churches would assist in having people understand more about Calvary Chapel. If the Catholic Church article had a See also section, would you envisage including a link to Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed churches, etc.? It makes some sense to have a link back from Association of Vineyard Churches to CC, or at least to Wimber or Lonnie Frisbee and thereby circuitously to this article. It would be good to know what reasons the information needs to be in both sections. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Good points, Walter. The reason I expect it was originally in the See Also is because the two grew up as sister churches. The reason I'd think it should still be there is because the article is pretty big. Someone may read the first paragraph, and immediately refer to the "see also" section, to find out what kind of affiliations the article holds. For example, someone may be from a Vineyard church. When they see the See Also note, it may result in them wanting to read the remaining parts of the article. I don't see the value in removing it -- removing it does not seem to improve the article, or improve the opportunity for the reader -- and I see theoretical value in leaving it. However, not a sword I wish to fall on. LtWin removed it twice, so he feels pretty strongly about it. Sliceofmiami (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What I feel strongly about is keeping lists to a minimum. They have a tendancy to become huge lists of redundancy. The purpose of a See also section is to say "Hey, these subjects that are not in the article's main body could also be informative". Since the Vineyard is already mentioned in the main body of the article, it takes the also out of the see. See WP:See also. Ltwin (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "LtWin removed it twice". For the sake of precision, I think I deleted it once and Ltwin deleted it once after it had been put back. I was not aware of the see also policy but once made aware of it, it made sense to remove it. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There's more than a sister church relationship between CC and the Vineyard. John Wimber was a Calvary Chapel pastor. The root church of the Vineyard is Anaheim Vineyard which was Calvary Chapel of Yorba Linda until it was removed by Chuck Smith. This is well documented in John Wimber's widow's book which describes how they were removed from CC by Chuck Smith personally due to differences in manifestations of spiritual gifts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.251.204 (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. They are not sister churches any more than The Lutheran church is a sister church to the Catholic church. Not only is the theology different on points such as charismatic gifts and the role of scripture to govern, but there are many other fundamental differences. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Gorlitz, I have to disagree. From what I've read, they do seem to be awfully (historically) close. It doesn't matter if their doctrines are now different, the fact is that many of the original Vineyard churches were under the Calvary banner. Of course, the Catholic Church's wouldn't need to mention every offshoot, but its history section would mention the Protestant Reformation. Ltwin (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The differences between CC and the Vineyard are not evidence they are not related, but rather the reason for the division that happened originally. Plus, the divisions can't be described accurately as "theological" but one of praxis. The split between CC and the Vineyard mentioned happened about 30 years ago. There's no reason that both groups should not have morphed with time. It is undeniable that many original Vineyard churches were Calvary Chapels which took a variant view of the charismatic gifts from Chuck Smith's view. The early Calvary Chapel (CCCM) had a wider variety of spiritual gifts than more recent times. In particular, Youth Concerts in the 1970s practiced baptism in the Holy Spirit, as an example at "afterglows". Further evidence was the circumstances surrounding the removal of Lonnie Frisbee from Calvary Chapel and (incidentally) his absorption into the Vineyard. Frisbee was more Pentecostal than Smith but there's always been cross-pollination between the two groups. Of the pastors who left CC and went to the Vineyard, last time I looked all had returned to CC except John McClure (Vineyard Newport Beach). The two churches clearly accept each other's ordination as an example of the relationship.--24.144.251.204 (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)MTM

Not Accurate, Either

I realize the primary objection in these articles is that it isn't neutral, but it is also simply inaccurate in its descriptions of other denominations and Christian movements. For instance, the article suggests that Calvary Chapel, unlike fundamentalists, believe in spiritual gifts. Oddly, I have been a member of a fundamentalist church for years, and know with certainty that there are many fundamentalist groups who do believe in spiritual gifts. This is not a neutrality issue--this is basic misinformation or ignorance on part of the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.31.167.68 (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Pentecostals are fundamentalist and encourage spiritual gifts. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this distinction comes from CC literature, wherein "striking a middle ground" between fundamentalism and charismatic practices is advanced as a distinctive. It has always been a poor point of comparison. I think what they have in mind is their notion that 1950s style fundamentalism was "legalistic" and "spiritually dead" and charismatic practices involved emphases that were doctrinally suspicious. So they hoped to strike some sort of balance of doctrinally correct fundamentalism and spiritually alive, but moderate charismatic faith. But unless one takes a CC-centric view, the distinction stops making much sense. It goes back to the same old issue for this article. It is mostly written in CC-centric language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.180.41 (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. In some sense there is truth to the statement. When Pentecostalism began, fundamentalists were cessationist Christians and they really were hostile to the manifestational gifts that are prominent within Pentecostalism. Pentecostals are fundamentalist but beliefs in spiritual gifts separated them for at least the early part of the movement's existence. Today, that is not the case as Pentecostal beliefs have found more acceptance and tolerance within the Christian scene. Ltwin (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Escatology

I'd like to move the Smith 9/11 line from practices into escatology and delete the reference to Richard Abanes and the 80's rapture information because this appears to be redundant. Just the LA times quote should suffice. Any objections?

The material on Smith and 9/11 has been part of the body of this article for a long time now. It is well sourced and refers to the post-911 context of Bible prophesy which marks an historically significant turn in pre-millennial speculations about the end times. Removing the material without comment is not an accepted editing practice in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvanduyse (talk • contribs) 00:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It was moved and redacted. It's just in a different section. As for how long something is in an article...that's no guarantee that it's good material and can't stand a good edit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. And to that end, I removed the sentence that referred to Richard Abanes and the 81 rapture since it is covered under eschatology. My motivation for removing it is that the first two sentences now seem redundant in the article. For what it's worth, I had written both sentences originally. They are both accurate. But the first couple of sentences don't seem to add anything.Don Van Duyse (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up some of the material in the criticisms section

Years ago, I began a process of introducing some of the more multi-facaceted, non-CC, and sometimes critically oriented sources to this article. When I made reference to "group think" which is sourced to comments on the Rick Ross web site, this was when the article contained little non-cc material. At this point, although I wrote it (again, for what that's worth) I think the reference to group think is redundant. Another editor added a better reference to Rick Ross in the Sonoma County Independent which had some nice, balanced quotes for different sources within that article. Also, other editors developed material about the moses model and accountability. I think the "goup think" issue is more clearly addressed and better sourced in the Rick Ross and Moses model references before and after it. I favor removing the "group think" reference because it it redundant now. Also, I think the reference to "Calvanist critics" always had undo weight. Sure, some guy on a web site had a calvanist criticism of Calvary Chapel. But we could pile up web-based criticisms of this type from all kinds of sources and it wouldn't add up to anything substantial. I think in an odd way the "calvanist critics" section was an effort at self-flattery by CC-promoting/defending editors who wanted to prove that CC "strikes the right balance" as is noted in their promotional literature ala Chuck Smith. I propose removing the Calvinist critics material on the ground that it presents a very distorted sense of theological criticisms that are made in regards to Calvary Chapel. Better sourced criticisms focus more on eschatology. CCs "Lack of Calvanist doctrine" is a red herring. It is sourced to a blog or web site. Time to remove it.Don Van Duyse (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with your edits and rationale. I never really liked some of those criticisms but could not fashion an appropriate counter. You put it very nicely. 66.177.182.247 (talk) 01:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Reason for "introducing some of the more multi-facaceted, non-CC, and sometimes critically oriented sources"?

I guess this is just a comment, but it somewhat makes me wonder about an editor who is actively attempting to add critical references and information into a Wikipedia article. Sounds like someone with an axe to grind - doesn't it? Whether it's all good and non-biased, is this the purpose of some authors while adding content to the Christian-oriented Wikipedia pages that we NEED "to show balance" by finding defamative references/info to introduce?

Again I guess this is just a general comment and not necessarily critical of the author who wrote these words (as his discussion in the Talk section is perfectly legit and logical) - it just seems like Christian pages on Wikipedia are drenched with comments like "nobody really believes this crap" (attached to a reference from left-leaning newspaper or psychology magazine) while pages of other religeons are closely protected against these types of edits. While reading through what edits are and are not approved on pages that I read, it appears that articles that are termed "editorials" are commonly bounced as being biased - why are opinion pieces in papers and magazine that paint Christianity in a negative tone allowed when they have the same inherent bias (there is no Jesus or Christian God). Wikipedia wouldn't allow note on Brett Favre's page to the effect "it is obvious that by playing in 2010 he stayed in the NFL one year too many because he's been hurt a lot and generally played bad" - so an editor's first question would be "although this MAYBE true, it's obvious too whom" and he'd kill it? However in a similar vein, newsprint authors who convict Calvary Chapel of being a cult or into "group think" rarely have any evidence beyond their probably biased opinions, but these references are considered legitmate CC criticsm to be considered for inclusion. Huh?!?!

Probably a broad-brushed comments and not necessarily properly sourced, but there it is. Obviously this isn't the place for a global discussion on how "the world" treats Christianity so maybe I'm just venting, but I think the original observation is legitimate so take it for what it's worth (which is probably very little). Ckruschke (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Ckruschke

Okay, I'll bite. To be balanced, the article probably did need to include other viewpoints about the movement. I'm biased that it is a great movement but it is not perfect, nor is any other. In Dvanduyse's defense, his additions were fair, balanced, and properly sourced (e.g. not blogs or hate sites), unlike many other editors that have visited with a clear axe to grind. Additionally, he worked hard toward consensus, sometimes enduring difficult reverts and edits by myself and others. 71.23.13.152 (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Despite the fact a source was provided, the source is mis-represented. This is from Rick Ross's site on the disclaimer page: http://www.rickross.com/disclaimer.html - "...However, the mention and/or inclusion of a group or leader within this archive does not define that group as a "cult" and/or an individual mentioned as either destructive and/or harmful. Instead, such inclusion simply reflects that archived articles and/or research is available about a group or person that has generated some interest and/or controversy..."

This being the case I propose that the word "cult" or "cult-like" be removed altogether as there is apparently no reputable source making those claims. Perhaps the source's own words might be more accurate: "interest" or "controversy".--LucidObscurity (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that's fair. Ross specifically stops short of calling them a cult, but he does use the word "authoritarian" though, so perhaps changing the heading to something like "Accusations of Authoritarian Practices"? Or something similar but more concise if anyone has an alternative suggestion. Hoveringdog (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I can agree with that. Although I have been a member of several different Calvary's (and attended still more) so the idea that any of them are "authoritarian" is laughably ludicrous, this is not the first time I've heard the criticism and although I consider it the minority fring, right or wrong it probably deserves to be at least mentioned here. Good suggestion! Ckruschke (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Cool. I also pointed out that his arguments were valid - just that his original pretence was "interesting". If I want to have my insertions kept and read and be valuable, I need to learn to differ to others when in the heat of the moment I can allow opinion to sway. Thanks for the listen. Ckruschke (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

I think the problems this article has attracted are twofold: 1) Existing sources are skewed and are often either overtly promotional or critical 2) editors interested in the article skew in those directions. This makes consensus a challenge. I think the long term solution will be that more material will be written in upcoming decades by sources with historical perspective. Until then, I think there is little more to do than balance the critical and promotional information striving for neutrality, while reflecting as many points of view as possible. when information is well sourced, valid, add it, but if it is promotional or critical, find a way to balance it. Don Van Duyse (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with Dvanduyse, and add that most of the people that are going to comment on this page are highly influenced by the denomination, or at least have some history with them -- otherwise why did the person search for anything? That is, if someone is coming to learn about CC, they probably aren't going to add much to the article. That said, I have found books that call Calvary Chapel a "New Religious Movement," but those references were removed from this article. Sliceofmiami (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Time to archive?

I'd like to suggest that the talk be archived. I'd do it but I don't know how and as an IP editor I suspect I don't have the privilege. 71.23.13.152 (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggested it earlier and was shot-down (I think it was here). There are a few archive bots that can do it automatically. Unless there are other objections, I will add the commands by the weekend. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct. I remember your earlier suggestion and that it was shot down, but the user who shot it down no longer seems to be editing here and I can only AFG on the reasonings behind it. 71.23.13.152 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC).

Thanks, Walter. 66.177.182.247 (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)