Talk:People of Praise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 24 April 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing maintenance of the People of Praise article.
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments


Contents

[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)

I, Adrian Reimers, am surprised to see that the my "More that the Devil's Due" piece is cited and nothing else. Were I citing something by me, I would have chose my earlier piece, "Covenant Community, a Failed Promise," also published in Cultic Studies Journal. This piece gives more history, as well as some of my criticisms. I also have written a more thoroughly documented critique, NOT RELIABLE GUIDES, which appears on my website: http://www.nd.edu/~areimers/Covenant%20Communities.htm. This might prove to be a source for future editing of this article on POP. Of course, these pieces are rather critical of the organization. On the other hand, in writing them I have sought to be truthful and have documented as much as I could. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.121.245 (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2007 (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)

People of Praise, a cult crafted by Satan in the pits of hell? And you wonder why this criticism was deleted? Come on. This is an extremely serious accusation that is usually undeserved no matter what it is directed at.

[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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)
The contract agreement for Trinity teachers who are ALREADY members of People of Praise does state that if they leave the community while they are still teachers, doing so is grounds for termination. User:Tarahumara 00:56, 22 May 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)

[edit] a renewed discussion, please?

I am not a POP member, nor an ex-POP member, but have a wealth of experience with the POP and Trinity Schools because my parents are covenanted members of the POP (for around 35 years now). My sister is underway. I am not going to reveal which branch my family is a part of. I grew up in the POP, a part of the inner circle. I also graduated from a Trinity School. I considered joining the POP in my senior year of high school. I was baptized in the Spirit. My opinions have changed, however, and I decided against having any association with the organization. I am not against the POP, nor for it. Perhaps I can be of help.

1. The points of view which have been expounded here are acceptable, but your discussion has fizzled.

2. Pro-POP: It is clear that your wiki page is not neutral. I am surprised that you have responded to any posted criticism by deleting it; if anything, you should instead encourage rational and well-supported criticism of your organization in order to learn more about it and improve it. You should be practically inviting people to challenge you...if your belief in the POP is strong, criticism does not matter to you. The more the merrier. If your beliefs are wavering, criticism can be a valuable tool to prevent people from making a mistake: either joining a group they do not belong in, or leaving the group for bad reasons or in a moment of passion. It is called dialogue.

2.1 Your citations of the POP and City Builders websites are insufficient because they do not adequately explain the reasoning behind the Community's decisions--e.g. the Roles of Men and Women section explains how the POP organizes men and women into specific activities. The logical reaction to your statements, copy-pasted from the POP website and not foundational documents such as "The Spirit and Purpose of the People of Praise", lead your opponents to view your organization as sexist.

3. Anti-POP: It does in fact matter who someone cites; if the source is a member, non-member, or ex-member, their subjective opinions will manifest themselves in their speech and writing, thereby affecting the objective truth--sometimes substantially.

3.1 Although it may be true that the wiki page is biased for the POP, the key is to introduce enough well-placed and supported criticism such that a balance is achieved. Acting alone, those against the POP are also incapable of writing a truly objective piece.

4. Regarding the wiki page, it is clear that the criticism section is weak. It doesn't even address the issues raised in the preceding sections.

4.1 The Trinity Schools section has the same problems. It appears to have been edited by students.

4.11 Such controversial issues as male-female social relations seem to be misguided. Trinity advocates argue that such relationships are not discouraged, only best fostered in groups as opposed to one-on-one. Anti-Trinity individuals argue that the students are oppressed and led towards social incompetentcy. The debate is not about which of these sides is right; Trinity is a private organization which by law may establish its own internal regulations and guidelines. Parents play a critical role with their personal interpretations of Trinity/POP rules. Their conservative or liberal enforcement of these rules will greatly affect the individual student's opinions of Trinity and the POP. The discussion should be about communication. How do Trinity and the POP fail to properly convey their interests to Trinity families? Where do parents and students improperly interpret the communications coming from Trinity and the POP?

Please excuse any grave misinterpretations of my own in this post; I am writing in haste without proofreading. Just to let you know. Thanks.

Aufklaerung 04:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Aufklaerung

[edit] POP Prophecy

Can we get some clarification on when the propecy was recieved within the community? The POP literature now entails a contradiction. The current issue of Vine and Branches states 2005, Nick Holavaty on citybuilder.org states 2006, and the wonderful POP wiki page currently says 2003. What's the deal? This is important for Christians to know so we can be for sure of what year it is the POP will go down as false prophets. Thank you. Holyghostofgod 07:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Or can we just cut to the chase and proclaim the deception, distortion and abduction of God's Word that the POP is? Holyghostofgod 04:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually they largely do a good job of being non-dogmatic, open to all denominations, and generally vanilla flavored Christianity, with a few notable exceptions. Although a large percentage of the organization is Catholic they do have a fair mix of everything else as well. 166.189.221.249 (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Might I add some biblical support to qualify the above statement:
"If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it." Duet. 18:22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.112.182 (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Article

Yay! I'm all about deletion of this article. I've been trying to edit this page for about six months and any time I do, whatever I edit gets re-edited by POP members within about 6 minutes. This has been very frustrating. There is absolutely NO neutrality to this article at all! -Also, Aufklaerung- you make some good points. Why don't you edit it yourself??? d1xrfgf3 14:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I second the notion to scrap this article and start over. This has been a bunch of bull since I started editing here. We get to the point where we almost have a sense of neutrality and then a new POP member comes along with no idea what wikipedia is about and starts making changes. Whoever has been messing with the membership section, please stop, your efforts are like a fiction writer not a encyclopedic objective minded writer. Holyghostofgod 17:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that instead of deleting this article, you ask the Wikipedia powers that be to restrict the ability to edit the page, due to it's disputed neutrality? I have no major qualms with the way the page is being presented. Necessary disclaimer, however: Adrian Reimers is my father.--Reimero (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing the article

This was the first article I've nominated for deletion that has not reached a consensus. I do not think it is helpful for editors to nominate articles for AfD's if they are not willing to do some work on them.

This article is in need of some serious editing. The first thing I plan on doing is going through and deleting all unsourced material that is currently challenged or could be. According to WP:V "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

Of course, other editors are encouraged to add the material back to the article if they can source it. After addressing concerns about un-cited sources I plan on addressing neutrality issues. Theredhouse7 21:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Sounds good. School is finishing up soon, so I will be able to help as well. Aufklaerung 01:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to edit the article to make it sound more neutral. My first reading of it was that it was a promo article for POP, to which I belong. I was somewhat embarrassed. I have tried to use terms that might be more readily understandable and to capitalize proper names to reduce confusion. I am VERY open to ongoing dialogue as to how to make this more accurate and neutral. Like any group, we often believe our own hype and use terminology that hinders genuine dialogue and mutual understanding. Colin LaVergne

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Peopleofpraise.jpg

Image:Peopleofpraise.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I've editted the article abit for neutrality, just a couple sentences at the beginning and changed some wording near the end. I believe the article is neutral enough to meet to Wikipedia standards. If we could get an unbiased opinion (i.e. someone who isn't a PoP member) to review the article for neutrality, then we should be able to take that disputed tag off, I think. -KriticKill (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding??? I think with the added external links and after the criticism section has been developed to cover the various areas of the POP such as headship, ecumenism, etc. and the ambiguity is taken out of the language then we can talk about taking off the neutrality tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.9.201 (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That actually falls under article expansion, not neutrality. Besides the only good way to add to the criticism section is to talk to a PoP insider, preferably a coordinator or a branch head. There are few unbiased accounts of the PoP, and very little in the way of literature regarding them. Most of what does exist regarding or referencing them, by unbiased (or potentially unbiased) sources, is found in references and chapters of books on the Charismatic Renewal, Azusa Street revival, and the Pentacostalism/Discipleship movements. Still searching for any books/articles specifically targetting the PoP in any form or fashion. In a word, they are effectively secretive.
If you're really interested you might go try to find back issues of the Vine & Branches, PoP's inside newsletter, but who knows if those are to be found anywhere on the web or not. Also sign your posts, I'm not obliged to take them seriously if you don't, and neither is anyone else. -KriticKill (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Oh scratch that, easy find, www.peopleofpraise.org/thevine/ still looking to see how far back the issues go, however.

[edit] Links

Adding a lot of article links within the article, much of it within the intro paragraphs.

[edit] External Links

Created section for internet links. Need links added. Links should be limited and relevant to elements of article. I modeled the section after Scientology and Unification Church pages that contain Official, Supportive and Critical headings for respective links. I would like to think this would add neutrality to the article, by offering page visitors quick links to other "sources" related to People of Praise wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.9.186 (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section

Plan on further developing the criticism section by including Adrian's proper title and identification and material cited by the other works he has completed on this group. A good two or three more paragraphs can be added to the criticism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.9.201 (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)