Talk:Local churches
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles. |
Contents |
[edit] removal of Disputed Neutrality boilerplate
i've tried to sort out the mess that was the Controversies section by separating out the For and Against arguments. in light of that may i suggest removing the Disputed Neutrality boilerplate?
i suppose the Disputed Facts boilerplate should stay as sources are scarce, though. unless someone can suddenly find a wealth of online/written information.
[edit] Local Church Controversy
Could the editors of this article please read my talk comments on Talk:Local Church controversy? I'm trying to see if we can get some order and agreement as we try to forge an informative and valuable set of articles, regardless of whether we support or criticize the local churches. Cokoli 02:08, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
==A Biased Soapbox? I am sorry to see such an unprofessional biased soapbox is permitted to exist in Wikipedia. There are a series of controversial claims which can not be verified to be true or accurate or based on any local church published materials. Wikipedia should not become a chatboard, whereby those who are negative against the local churches get to paste their claims (i.e. on a soapbox). It seems that accuracy and unobjective posting on topics, is unexplainedly not being required here. Why not have chatboard pages for every group in wikipedia? then those who are negative can repost their "unsubstaniated, biased, personal interpretations". This kind of trash journalism serves only to degrade wikipedia. I am not clear why posting quotes from the local church publishedn materials is not required for each "controversial claim"?. Allowing potentential misinterpretations or biased opinions masquerading as facts, is shameful and certainly below the standard of a fact based presentation. If one removes the controversial claims/personal opinions then the major content surround lawsuits which each one can be objectively verified and reported on. Whether wikipedia wants to act as link post for Pro/Con websites, my question is are there such pro/con website references for other christian groups/denominations i.e the catholic church, if they have controvery pages as well then the it would seem fair to do likewise. I think for instance in the ruling of Harvest House it would be very beneficial to post the decision (properly referenced), to note that in fact the court could not rule on the controversial claim of the LSM or the plaintiff churches as being a cult, as a matter of law they could not express an opinion on such a definition. The major controversy I have is why these opinions masquerading as facts have been allowed to remain? As for merging this topic with the main page, it seems to me that garbage in garbage out principle dictates this should not be done.
== RS 01:11PM, Jan 18 2006
I think it is wrong to say you are God in any way; to sue Christians for faith; engage in violent screaming and repetitive mantra which is neither reading nor prayer; defending calvinism the pride of believing in being premade for salvation whiles others premade for hell; teaching modalism that the Father is the Son and that the Godhead is a Person; designate one's organization as abiding in Biblical locality when the very existence of a central command associated with products for sale violates the work of apostles; altering Watchman Nee's writings is bearing false witness.
Should the Church accept the unholy trinity of was (Witness Lee), is not (Witness Lee) and is about to come (Rev. 17.8) through the Living Stream Ministry by The Local Church?
[edit] Writer Beware
Like entries on similar organizations such as Scientology and the Jehovah's Witnesses, no fair discussion can take place on this topic. If anyone dare edit this article, it will be swiftly and aggressively reverted to reflect only the official point of view of the Local Church and its headquarters, the Living Stream Ministry. Try it.
[edit] Don't even bother to note it is "controversial"
[edit] disputed article text
This warning was moved from the article and replaced with the standard boilerplate texts for NPOV dispute and accuracy dispute. Daniel Quinlan 07:59, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
Dear readers,
Note: The information on this page is biased. For more accurate information, please do some research yourself since much of the information below is based on the writings of Jim Moran (therefore it has not been experienced personally by one of the Wiki's contributors).
Pro: www.lsm.org, www.christianwebsites.org, www.contendingforthefaith.org
Against: Sites by Jim Moran, Daniel Azuma, Anton Hein, etc.
Please do not remove this announcement!
I removed some of the more POV passages, including weasel words like 'seeming' and blatent puff passages. It should be possible to write a sensible article about this movement without either canonising or demonising it. I'm going to remove the more purple passages again; please discuss why you think they should go back, if you do. DJ Clayworth 18:27, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Please explain what facts are disputed. If none, then we can remove the notice. DJ Clayworth 18:39, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This article hasn't been touched or discussed in two months now, I'll remove the notices and see if there are any further problems that result from it. Bryan 22:52, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I recommend reinserting the accuracy dispute if there is, in fact, legitimate concern. For what its worth, Christian Websites hosts this site giving the history of the movement from a distinctly insider perspective:
If certain facts are still in dispute, even after verification, then it is certainly reasonable to update the page to match the facts. I simply do not have the energy to engage in an extended discussion as to whether or not such and such is actual history. The facts are there and can be researched by anyone who has the inclination to do so. I encourage concerned readers to make factual updates that increase content in the article, as opposed to simply removing factual information simply because it is in some way disagreeable.
As Daniel Quinlan points out in his user page:
"Many articles at Wikipedia have evolved into agenda vehicles and Wikipedia lacks the will and the technology to allow neutral authors to effectively overrule vocal minorities pushing various agendas."
Give the overall controversy surrounding this movement, I am concerned that any critical remarks about them will be regarded as non-NPOV, and thus edited out. To this end I had considered adding an entry Local Church controversy, however the same problems would arise with that page. The advantage of Wikipedia is in its online revision control system, so older edits of webpages remain available.
Further discussion points can be placed here, and I will try to remain attentive to these concerns in the future.
TheLocalChurch 21:54, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Also, the talk: page serves as a good record for these things too. Now that you've put your concerns here, it's possible that if a problem arises in the future some editor will see them and know that the "NPOVing" might have an ulterior motive. If the article's text isn't currently under dispute, I think it might be best to just leave these warnings here on talk: as a safeguard against potential future problems for now. Bryan 06:58, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I dispute TheLocalChurch's use of the moniker "TheLocalChurch" as his/her user name. This user claims to have a NPOV on subject matter related to the Local Church, yet it is clear from the user's own statements that his/her position is not neutral on this matter and that he/she is not capable of separating personal grievances from objective description. The moniker "TheLocalChurch" is used by this person not in good faith, as it is misleading in that any reasonable person would assume that a person named "TheLocalChurch" writing on the topic of the "Local Church" would be a representative or authoritative source for the Local Church, which this person obviously is not. If you are having difficulty seeing my point of view on this, consider a person who is in subjective disagreement with the Methodist Church, yet publicly names himself "TheMethodist" and proceeds to subtley modify all Wikipedia articles to spin the Methodist Church in a negative light. Such activity would obviously be considered devious and unacceptable.
I also dispute much of the writing on TheLocalChurch's user page, which I understand is voluntarily off-limits to my redaction. For example, this person's justification for remaining anonymous is itself a subtle slandering of the Local Church. The implication in this user's justification for remaining anonymous is that Living Stream Ministry and the Local Church involve themselves in frivolous lawsuits in order to harass people who disagree with their beliefs and practices, and that this person does not want to be harassed by such frivolous lawsuits. The facts are quite the opposite: Living Stream Ministry and the Local Church have engaged in only three legal actions in their entire existence: one against Thomas Nelson publishers, et al, resulted in the defendants retracting the book and issuing a public apology; one against Spiritual Counterfeits Project, et al, resulted in an $11.9 million judgment against the defendants (with the judge awarding an extraordinay amount of punitive damages to the plaintiffs); and another against Harvest House Publishers, et al, that is ongoing, but is already looking to be a sound defeat for the defendants to the tune of about $136 million. Evidently, the United States government's judicial system would beg to differ with TheLocalChurch's implication that the Local Church and Living Stream Ministry involve themselves in frivolous lawsuits.
And so we must consider what the real motive is behind TheLocalChurch's insistence on remaining anonymous. I don't think this is Daniel Azuma, as he is not afraid to publish his criticism of the Local Church on the Internet. Neither is it Jim Moran, because he passed away last year. Could it be Anton Hein? Maybe. Anton Hein was convicted in the United States of child molestation and fled to another country, from whence he publishes his website that is critical of the Local Church. He would be motivated to remain anonymous on the Wikipedia in order to limit the damage a child molestation conviction would do to his credibility. TheLocalChurch, are you Anton Hein in hiding?
--Nathan w cheng 21:40, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
All who are truly interested in getting to the bottom of this, please, before you do anything more, read this: Libel Litigations Filed by the Local Churches. Thank you! --Nathan w cheng 22:21, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Nathan,
- You are certainly free to have your opinion on these matters! :) In fact, I would encourage you to express it because I value the freedom of speech. You will note, however, that at this point, other than posting the original text for this page, I have made no other major updates to it. Other Wikipedians have themselves defended the article and numerous attempts to deface it. As far as the details you mention above, I do not make a secret of those events, but instead encourage individuals to get both sides of the story. Particularly relevant to this is the SCP Newsletter which discussed the events surrounding the actions you list, and the aftermath of the court decision upon SCP. All users of Wikipedia should use the site with the full knowledge that articles are presented in an as-is basis, and further research should be performed to corroborate the information contained within it. Wikipedia, after all, is by definition a work in progress, and therefore not perfect.
- As far as a sound defeat of the Harvest House suit, this is hardly assured. Some details can be found here:
- From Living Stream Ministries, a response:
- And, the most recent response from Harvest House:
- (This statement has only been out a couple days. Living Stream Ministry will likely put out a response shortly, however at the time of this edit I am unaware of a response.)
- I think your speculation about my identity will be seen by users as adolescent :) That said, I do appreciate your speculation that I might be Anton Hein, and take it more as a compliment than an attack. Anton has his own website, Apologetics Index, which has information about this movement posted. Apparently he can defend himself :) As an aside, if you disagree with Anton's site, there are avenues on his website with which you can express your disagreement. As far as Anton Hein purportedly being a child molestor, how does this speculation relate to the accuracy of this particular article?
- As far as NPOV is concerned, NPOV applies to all sides of a discussion, not just one particular one. It would be irresponsible to remove mention of controversy from this article in the interest of a supposed NPOV, as I pointed out already with Wikipedia Sysop Bryan Derksen. If you disagree with my user page, feel free to bring that up with me on my talk page. If you feel that I am a problem for Wikipedia, then you are welcome to address that with one of the Wikipedia Sysops :)
- Thanks!
- TheLocalChurch 05:14, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
- My only real problem with you is your use of the moniker TheLocalChurch, because it is such an underhanded thing to do, and it doesn't seem to bother you at all. --Nathan w cheng 22:49, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- In that case, thanks for clearing up your concern! :) I don't think it bothers me much, certainly not any more than the local churches portraying themselves as just another evangelical church seems to bother elders of the local churches. This attempt at portraying the movement as just another church is evident in how much "unspinning" this article has been through in the last dozen of so edits.
-
-
-
- TheLocalChurch 05:51, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
Nathan w cheng is entitled to his opinion, but not when it involves wrongful accusations regarding issues he is not familiar with.
For one thing, I post to Wikipedia under my real name, Anton Hein. I do not post anonymously to this - or any other website or online forum. Thus, for the record, I do not post under the name TheLocalChurch
My own websites, Apologetics Index and Religion News Blog are posted under the name of my wife and myself.
Nathan sees fit to mention my conviction on the charges of child molestation, and claims that I fled to another country. In reality, I accepted a plea bargain - in part on the advice of the Dutch consul, who was not impressed with America's justice system and for other reasons highlighted in the FAQ section at my own web site. As a result, I then spent 6 months and 20 days in jail. Shortly after my release, I received permission to visit the Netherland on account of the fact that my sister suddenly died. In the Netherlands, the Dutch Justice Department looked at my case, declared it to be a case of wrongful conviction, and advised me to remain in the Netherlands. Your suggestion that I am in hiding is ludicrous. The Dutch Justice Department interacted with the California Department of Justice regarding this matter. I'm in the phone book, and my address information is available to each and every person.
Has this experience hurt my credibility? Not that I know of. Scientologists and a handful of other adherents of groups deemed by some to be 'cults' have tried, but failed. In large part that is because since April, 2000, my website's FAQ section has included details about this case. Too, many people - lots of Americans included - know that the U.S. Justice System is notorious for its high frequency of wrongful convictions - including those that people have been pushed into with so-called pleabargains.
If you are going to make comments on legal issues, Nathan, make sure you know what you are talking about. Otherwise you'll have to be concerned about your own credibility. Speaking of which, with regard to the Local Church's lawsuit against Harvest House, you claim that it is "already looking to be a sound defeat for the defendants to the tune of about $136 million." Really? That would surprise the judge, lawyers and parties involved as this is an ongoing case that hasn't gone to trial yet. I advise you and others to check the facts, including a look at Harvest House's corporate statements.
With regard to the LC's lawsuit against the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, I invite people to look into the details of the case. See also, When Talk Isn't Cheap and Speech Isn't Free: The Abuse of Libel Law
I have little time nor interest in pursuing an ongoing discussion on this matter. Just wanted to set the record straight. And should you or anyone else visit Amsterdam, let me know. We'll get together for a beer and talk face to face.
Anton Apologetics Index Research resources on religions, cults, sects, doctrines, and related issues: News and news archives Other research resources
- Well, I'm glad you clarified that. It is interesting to me that you seem to imply here that your conviction was unjust, but yet I have read your own testimony in which you admit to having done something that I care not to even write about on this site, let alone think about. Do you really think that grown men should be able to do that to adolescents and not be corrected by the law? I suppose you feel that the U.S. justice system failed again when it made an $11.9 million judgment against Spiritual Counterfeits Project, basically having found SCP to be the real conterfeit. Some day there will be a final Judgment, and at that point it won't really matter how you spin the outcome. --Nathan w cheng 22:49, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Look Nathan, I don't know what your agenda is, but it looks like you'll only see what you want to see. Suffice it to say that those who - unlike you - are familiar with all the details of the case, support me. Among others, that includes the Dutch justice department.
As for the Final Judgment, I have no fear. My conscience is clear before God. That said, you may want to think about the fact that you and others who bring false accusations will have to give an account.
Now, I have given full disclosure, but you are still trying to bolster your case by ad hominem attacks on me. I guess you have no idea how weak that makes your arguments look.
- ...But not the American justice system. I'm American, and I think you are too.
- I think my agenda is pretty clear: to expose just about everything you have to say about the local churches as being untruthful and not in good faith, coming from a person who cannot be trusted because he has a criminal past for which he is not repentant.
- Um, what "false" accusation? ...Um, what "accusation"? Have I accused you of anything? What "ad hominem" attacks? Where have I abandoned fact or reason? If my case is made weak by statement of fact, then so be it; I care for the truth, regardless of whether or not it helps my case.--Nathan w cheng 06:12, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Nathan, I was born and raised in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Though I lived in America for a while, I always remained a Dutch citizen.
Your quest for truth is admirable. Unfortunately, the way you go about it virtually guarantees that you won't find it. After all, it appears that you merely pick and choose from what you consider to be 'facts,' while dismissing anything and everything that doesn't quite fit your opinions.
As for the American 'justice system,' you ought to check the facts presented by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or the Innocense Project. Then try and find similar information about the Dutch justice system.
On ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies see this entry in Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies. If you study the information at that site, you may learn why it is self-defeating to try and defend your opinions the way you do.
So I suggest you cut your losses and return to defending your views regarding the Local Church. You're only spinning your wheels by attacking me. Anton Hein
- Anton, if you read the original post in which I brought you up, I was speculating as to the identity of a user who insists on remaining anonymous, and why he might be motivated to do so. Thank you for clearing up the fact that you do not post anonymously--I commend you for that and wish that others would follow your example. As to your invitation to get together with you next time I am in Amsterdam, I must say that several years ago when I read on your website your own explanation of your personal controversy, you seemed to be quite unrepentant. Perhaps your view of the incident has changed in recent years, in which case I would be happy to meet you for a meal if I am ever in Amsterdam again.--Nathan w cheng 01:34, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- And I must add that I do believe when discussing--and especially disputing--topics related to Christianity and morality it is appropriate to consider the Christian testimony and moral character of the persons involved in the discussion or dispute.--Nathan w cheng 01:38, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
---
Nathan, my wife and I are in relationships of mutual accountability with fellow Christians. My conscience is clear before them and before God, and there is nothing whatsoever you can do to change that. So again, stick to the issue of the Local Church rather than play judge and jury. You gain absolutely nothing by continuing to focus to me. -- Anton Hein
[edit] Purpose of this talk page
This talk page exists to improve the article on Local churches. The above section discussing Anton Hein's private life is completely off-topic and will shortly be removed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:12, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Recommendation
Not being involved in the above discussion, I wanted to propose moving the material in "The Local Church as a Cult" to the "Local Church Controversy" page as it is off topic in the page about the history and practices. Furthermore, I submit that "Cult Awareness" is not NPOV and that the title should be changed to what is now the subtitle, "Opposing Points of View" E David Moyer 03:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I think it is important we stick the 6 major teachings of The Local Church, so we can hold those in Lee camp accountable instead of continually letting them off the hook by their not addressing these problems (i.e. always skirting around the facts): calvinism (pride in believing in being premade for salvation), suing for faith, modalism (saying the Father is the Son and the Godhead is a Person), altering Watchman Nee's writings (e.g. limiting affection to love and desire only to hate in LSM TSM), calling oneself God (in any way shape or form), and violent screaming mantra (which is neither prayer nor reading to yell 2 or 3 words aggressively).
Also, can we please stick to why it is wrong to have a central-hub command and control centre of LSM for filthy lucre, and no Aposles (which is rejecting Eph. 4.11). If the outlets of the lsm/lc system are without Apostles, then their outlets are taken care of by false Elders since those Elders are not and never will be appointed by Apostles. All this seems like quite a reasonable assessment stated succinctly. If only we could maintain the focus on these specific problems instead of always filling the pages with other matters, perhaps you will help this organization to find the way of the Dodo bird which is God's will. Sincerely.
[edit] Bad grammar
Someone with better grammatical skill in Enlglish please edit this entry, it is kind of painful to read.
[edit] Criticism should be inside this article
I've nominated the outsourced criticism page for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local Church controversy. According to our policy, the criticism almost always should be part of the main article. Some major editing here is needed. --Pjacobi 15:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- I started this separate article, and I agree that for the sake of NPOV, it should be part of the main article. Chitu 16:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the January AfD was merge and major problems were seen with the Controversies article:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local Church controversy
I've waited months that somebody knowledgeable would volunteer to do the prune and merge, but to no avail. To end thsi stalemate, I bluntly inserted the entire Controversies article here and hope for merciless editing to resolve the problems. --Pjacobi 20:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A mess
This article is a mess. It seems there isn't an editor available who knows something about the subject and is able and willing to write encyclopedic style. Silly disclaimers like As the issues here are of disputed neutrality and accuracy, it is hoped that Wikipedians will add (rather than delete) information to point out any deficiencies in these respects, in the spirit of having a neutral, factual discussion. (in article space!) don't help much. --Pjacobi 18:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
If possible, I would like to volunteer to be an editor for this this topic. I have attended meetings at the local church for a few years and have a good grasp of their teachings. Since 2002, I have not participated in any meetings or had contacts with anyone involved with the Local Church. Having been on both sides, I believe I will make a good editor. Please let me know how to best proceed as an editor.FredCheng 08:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] .......
First I would like to say wikipedia is a wonderful site. But is becoming more or less generic and it seems to be digressing. If it were upto me I would have gotten rid of this article on the local churches along time ago. This action should have been foreseen whether or not who put the article up. I'm not quite sure who put the article up, but from what I can tell its points are somewhat inaccurate, especially the allegations. It sickens me to have seen this. This is not a controversy, its just crap and uselessness. You people have no position to make this article, especially if you have never witnessed the church life. I've been in the church life for 17 years, and it sickens me to see this horrid stuff on here. I can honestly tell the viewers of this site that they are becoming bigots of bigotry just falling into this madness.
[edit] "The Local Church"?
I have grown up in the church life, and this article annoys me. Even though we emphasize that the church should NOT take a name, over and over the churches are referred to as some organization, "The Local Church." I am not being biased, it is inaccurate. There is more than one local church. That's the whole point. it's not The Local Church (like the Catholic Church or whatever). The term 'local churches' is simply used to describe them, not as a name. Please do not call the local churches The Local Church. They are all just small expressions of the one universal church.
It disgusts me that members of the Body should be called "followers of Lee", "Leeists", or believers in "Leeism". Witness Lee and Watchman Nee were both faithful servants used by the Lord to recover many truths lost over the years. God gave them the revelations. Do not think that Witness and Watchman thought it all up on their own and then tried to spread their teachings. Believers who meet with the local churches should NEVER be called followers of Lee. The Bible is their standard and the Lord is one and only Head. They would never think that they are in "Lee's church" or that Living Stream Ministry is in charge of everything.
[edit] Categorization
I noticed that this article wasn't categorized, so I added it to the category "Christian denominations". I know that local churches do not consider themselves a denomination, but I couldn't find another category that seemed applicable. Feel free to change it if you want, but the article should be in a category of some kind. —Cswrye 18:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
