Talk:People of Praise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing maintenance of the People of Praise article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. It's acceptable to edit an article to improve it.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Christianity Portal This article is part of WikiProject Charismatic Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pentecostalism, the Charismatic movement and its relatives and offshoots on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 There are headings at the top of the page 2 This article needs more objectivity 3 Content that could be added, needs sources 4 What if we added a criticism section 5 Re: Criticism section 6 Clarification (I hope) 7 Deletions 8 Question 9 Trinity POV

[edit] There are headings at the top of the page

Just wondering if you notredame and u of m i.p.'s and have noticed the headings at the top of this page. Seems not. Perhaps you should consider doing so.Christopheremerson 05:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs more objectivity

Dear People of Praise, this is Wikipedia and Wikipedia sites really should not read like advertisements. At times, this article does. I respect that you are excited about your faith but please learn to respect the objectivity rules.D1xrfgf3 21:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content that could be added, needs sources

So, in addition to the dispute regarding the material from Adrian Reimers, there are other areas of this article that require work. At the moment, it is a pretty incomplete picture of the topic. Here are some ideas for things that it would be helpful to find sources for and contribute:

• Activity in charismatic conferences in the 70's
• Publishing (Greenlawn Press, Vine & Branches)
• Explanation of how exactly various movements(charismatic, liturgical, ecumenical, and cursillo) contributed to the formation of the community
• Baptism in the Holy Spirit
• Further explanation of terms (headship, underway, household, covenant, etc.)
• Growth, how did it get from 29 to 3,000?

Danbold 19:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What if we added a criticism section

Alright, so I don't think that one source from a former member is enough evidence to color the entire article. Also, from the information provided here I wouldn't say that the People of Praise meets the criteria of a cult. But since it is clear that some former members and others have criticism regarding the group, we could add a section where well sourced objections could be added. Also making it clear who is saying what. Any thoughts? Danbold 17:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Criticism section

First off, I think that whether or not information is coming from former members or current members or whoever else is absolutely irrelevent. Secondly, I appreciate your willingness to allow others' views in this page, as other anonymous ip's have been very bad at. However, I don't understand what you mean when you say "Also making it clear who is saying what." This is supposedly an encyclopedic work, supposedly written with objectivity (which obviously hasn't been the case). I don't really care who is saying what, but what needs to happen is it needs to be an article that isn't dominated by those completely biased about it (one way or the other). That said, I am all about working together to find a happy medium. Which means: not slashing out items/sources we don't like (i.e. reimers) just because we don't agree. Which also means: thinking a little bit more critically and trying to use solid sources before spilling the word "cult" all over the page. D1xrfgf3 9 December 2006

[edit] Clarification (I hope)

I apologize for not making myself more clear the first time. Let me explain what I meant when I said, "Also making it clear who is saying what." Since this is an encyclopedic work its important to note where sources are coming from and in what context they were written. Adrian's criticisms were probably well founded, but they do not reflect the state of the community today. He left over twenty-five years ago. I, a current member of the community, have never encountered any of the pressures he writes about.

As for being released from the covenant, while it is true that members are granted approval to leave, there have been members who simply leave, without seeking approval. So in one sense you need approval, in another you don't. Danbold 06:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I, a recent former member, have experienced the same things that Adrian writes about.Holyghostofgod 02:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

There are very few characteristics of the occult that the People of Praise does not share. This article is currently very biased and overall includes a lack of sourcing. I can understand the lack of sourcing being due to the overall lack of verifiably objective material out there to source from. Most of the sourcing thus far appears to come from individuals personal experience with the cult. This being so I would appreciate suggestions and reasons why the following section, which results from my own recent personal experience with the cult, has been deleted. The following section was added to the Criticism section:

"Others have asserted that the People of Praise is actually a cult crafted by Satan in the pits of hell. This latter view encompasses the thoughts of many former members who have recently left. The recent exits stem from a prophesy that was received some years ago within the People of Praise. The prophesy claimed that the People of Praise was to build 200 cities in 40 years. The so called prophesy has been turned into a huge growth campaign by the leadership. Many members have sought to find out when exactly this prophesy took place. No dates are given by the leadership and inquiries into the prophesy are usually followed by lofty explanations on the nature of prophesy that basically circularly protect the so called prophesy from being shown false." Holyghostofgod 02:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Because, umm, it's unsourced, as you said. It's also an incredibly lofty claim to be made without sources. Any unverifiable statement can be removed by anyone. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

is people of praise a cult? 147.53.135.86 20:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)anonymous

Some would say yes, some would say no. The group doesn't define itself as one, although others think so. -Tropicality 05:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. . . As someone who knows the group fairly well, this is my response. If a friend or family member of mine were considering becoming a member or even going to one of their prayer meetings, I would strongly advise against it, for the sake of their psychological health. d1xrfgf3 16:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As someone who also knows the group quite well, I would say the answer is decidedly no. The People of Praise places a strong emphasis on making decisions in freedom, and it is very simple for a member to leave, particularly if they are underway. If you are thinking about joining the People of Praise, or are wondering about a friend or family member who is involved in it, I would suggest that you pay most attention to what you observe yourself. If you are scared, leave, but no one will make you stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Demiccoli (talk • contribs).

Let me clarify: I guess I could be punished by my school or whatever, but then again, I'm basically anonymous on here. I'm not a member, but I know many, again, attend their school, and have been to several prayer meetings. Although the group's members are officially members of many different Christian denominations, ninety percent being Roman Catholic, it seems that the members are more involved with POP beliefs, activities, and meetings moreso than their own churches. The group has meetings every week, and, often, members will meet more often than that. Children of group members are basically indoctrinated into the group, and are generally forced/coerced into attending group functions until the age of eighteen, at which age many children leave. The group is very defensive about their beliefs, and will not be wrong by any means. I could go on for a while here though. Any more specific questions you care to ask? -Tropicality (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Tropicality, did you know that Trinity has a contract agreement with their students parents that they will not attempt to indoctrinate them into the POP? So, I don't think you should worry about gettting into trouble, if anything Trinity Schools can get into trouble for trying to recruit from its student body. Also, you make good points about the psychological damage brought on to children of members. I am currenlty working with a number of individuals and have heard numberous testimonies of those who are recovering from their childhood experiences with the group. Holyghostofgod 08:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has recently left the People of Praise I strongly disagree with the statement that it is easy to leave. Only someone who has never left or never been involved can say it is so easy. Leaving the POP was one of the hardest decisions I have ever made. Obviously, no one explicitly or physically holds you into the covenant or the group. The People of Praise is much too intelligent for that. Rather the control to keep members in comes more subtly, usually through headship, teachings, leaders or other members. This is done by placing a fear in the devil or a fear that one is going against the will of God by leaving. The POP teaches that it is a people chosen by God. This is what God is doing in the world and now you want to leave?

Furthermore, the People of Praise is what is called a Bible cult or Christian Cult. Its physically harmless but orthodoxically heretical and has great potential for psychological harm. Placed on the continuum of Bible cults I would say POP would be in the least harmful classification. 128.101.254.98 08:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is another link to some personal experiences people have had with the group. http://9of.us/?p=25 Be free! Our apologies if any terminology is vague.. please feel free to ask for clarification. JustinW 05:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok so I don't really know all that much about the People of Praise, but it was involved a lot with a Group Called the Word of God, that I know a lot about. The Word of God was not "orthodoxically heretical" but did suffer some of the same allegations of psychological abuse. I wonder what about people of priase do you find "orthodoxically heretical?" This could help me detrmine if this critique also applies to The Word of God community. BillyKangas 16:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link that may help you. http://drstone.proboards67.com/index.cgi Holyghostofgod 16:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many definitions of what constitutes a cult. From Wikipedia's article on cults, here is one that is most germaine to this discussion.

   "A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgement, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of [consequences of] leaving it, etc) designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community." 8 

By this definition, People of Praise has in some times and places acted like a cult. Excessive reliance on the leadership is currently acknowlegded as having been a problem in the past. But what is most remarkable about this definition is that it could also apply to some Catholic and Protestant Churches in terms of how some people in them respond to the mission or leadership. E.g. Catholics have been told countless times that leaving the Church puts their salvation in question, or that private interpretations of Scripture are not to be trusted. Evangelicals have a history of encouraging people to forsake their families who don't understand the Gospel to follow Christ, maybe even to leave the country for mission work abroad. And that is the crux of the problem. Two people can experience the same life in People of Praise and have two very different reactions. For one it is a source of confusion, guilt, shame, bondage, etc. and for the other person, it is a source of life and freedom. So I think it behooves us to be careful how we throw around the term 'cult' when applied to People of Praise or any other group. There is no question that many people have found community life to be oppresive. There is no question that many people have found community life to be freedom. Submitted by Colin LaVergne, sometimes internal critic, but still a current member of People of Praise.

[edit] Trinity POV

Parts of the Trinity Schools section are beginning to sound more like criticism than NPOV, namely dating & morning prayer. JustinW 19:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to argue that it's untrue? It's all true, and supplementary to the already-there agreed-upon information. -Tropicality (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha!! Are you serious?? Haven't you seen the heading at the top of the page which reads: "this article reads like an advertisement"?? Oh wait, you deleted that. Hm. I'm with Tropicality on this one. d1xrfgf3 16:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Being that it is taboo within the POP community for members to openly criticize or talk negatively about their group, I can understand the difficulty that current members are having with seeing criticism and other points that can be taken as negative. But, I would like to remind all of you POP members that this is an encyclopedic work and not a means of advertisement and evangelizing. Holyghostofgod 12:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)