Christianity: Charismatic B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.

Reformed Christianity B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reformed Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Reformed Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Reformed ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject Reformed ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject Reformed ChristianityReformed Christianity B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The Charismatic WikiProject template was deleted from this talk page because "CC is not charismatic". This is untrue - CC has its roots in the charismatic Jesus People movement, and has always retained the belief in the charismatic gifts, even if Chuck Smith has been critical of much of the charismatic movement. Both Smith and CC have entries in the Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (ed Stanley Burgess et al). David L Rattigan 17:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Believing in the gifts does not make a church part of Charismatic Christianity. Having entries in a dictionary, likewise. The fact that Pastor Church has been critical of much of the charismatic movement proves my point. The template is being re-deleted. I'd suggest you visit Vineyard instead. [Unsigned message by 66.177.178.5]

The template has been replaced. Calvary Chapel has its roots in the charismatic movement and is important to the subject historically. David L Rattigan 06:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{Comment deleted.} 70.89.12.50 10:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have demonstrated with reference to a scholarly source that the template belongs here. An admin will be along to sort this out. David L Rattigan 10:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the origins of the movement / association of "Calvary Chapel"s may well be in the Charismatic movement, from the little I know of the movement is that is is distinctly not "charismatic" although the teaching allows the possibiliy of tongue speaking and prophecy giving, the norm is that it does not occur. This is without doubt a borderline example of a "charismatic" denomination. There are clearly local exceptions to this and all denominations have local variations. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in on this. Whether Calvary Chapel is part of the "Charismatic movement" per se is a moot point; it is part of the project because of its roots and history, and its teaching on the charismatic gifts at least makes it a part of charismatic Christianity (in the theological sense), if not the mainstream charismatic movement. Chuck Smith's Charisma vs Charismania makes his own charismatic experience (tongues and interpretation etc) very clear, and consciously draws a line between his own ostensibly moderate charismatic experience and that of extremists (charismania).

By the way, for general reference, I have updated the project page to clarify what comes under the scope of the project.

In some ways I feel a bit dumb debating all this here, as it's only a template on a talk page, after all. However, my future additions to the main article may well touch on some of the charismatic-related issues, so here might be a good place to clear up a few things. David L Rattigan 10:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated on the mediation page, I think that the Project encompasses all Christian movements that embrace the charismatic gifts (either in a big or small way), not just the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement proper. As such, Calvary Chapel falls within this ambit. Jaems 11:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David L Rattigan has posted a request for mediation here to which I am responding in the hope of resolving this disagreement. I am not an admin and I am not here to sort this out, but rather to simply try and mediate towards a solution. Is there any contention that the book cited by David L Rattigan is not a reliable source? If the book is a reliable source, it seems to me that the inclusion of CC in a book of that title is strong evidence of CC being a Charismatic Movement. 66.177.178.5 - do you not think the book is a reliable source?

Have the good folk at the wikiproject in question been consulted as to this question? It seems they would be the relevent group of experts to offer opinions on the subject. Can I suggest that someone raises the question there.

In the meantime, I also suggest that people refrain from editing the entry, as doing so will simply continue and prolong the revert-battle. OK, so the current state of the article isn't to everyones viewpoint, but lets have a sensible discussion and decide what the final version should be. Kcordina ^Talk 08:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The article itself isn't actually part of the dispute - I have hardly done any edits to it myself. The sole point of contention is having the Charismatic WikiProject on this talk page. I will raise it at the project talk page as you suggested.

Having said that, I do intend to contribute to the article eventually, so establishing that Calvary Chapel is a legitimate charismatic-related subject could be helpful in anticipating any future dispute. David L Rattigan 08:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There now seems to be a good on-going discussion about this issue. Since I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to contribute to that debate, I propose to close the mediation request and leave you to discuss it between yourselves. Kcordina ^Talk 08:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your efforts. I think the person who initially made the changes (and whom I suspect also logged in under a different IP to "agree" with him/herself) has disappeared anyway. Cheers. David L Rattigan 09:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, regarding that first user (who deleted my charismatic template), I see from look at the ISP's history that the user has been here before, removing content from this talk page that s/he disagreed with. David L Rattigan 09:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was deleted before was not something disagreed with, but something that was no longer relevant to the article: basically, everything under the 'cleanup tag' in this discussion. (You can verify this yourself by doing more complete research into the history logs.) If you read the 'cleanup tag' discussion, you'll see that it hasn't been relevant for some time.

I still highly disagree that Calvary Chapel is Charismatic. Chuck Smith undeniably believes in the gifts of the spirit, but he also appears to be very much against how some churches labeled "Charismatic" or even "Pentecostal" manifest or focus on those gifts (see the first Chapter of his Charisma vs. Charismania). Because of these concerns and the unhealthy division they can cause, Calvaries avoid labels such as "Charismatic" or "Pentecostal" just as they avoid labels of "Calvinist" and "Armenianist".

Given your own views and experiences with a charismatic/pentecostal church, can you truly approach your project with an NPOV? Your motives for rooting out all that is Pentecostal/Charismatic could be seen as disingenuous. (As an aside - I will certainly pray that you will be healed and restored from these experiences.)

Your assertion that I logged into another IP to agree with myself is unfounded and unfair. I request an apology. 66.177.178.5 11:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the accusation.

The issue here is not whether Calvary Chapel calls itself "charismatic", but whether the subject is relevant to the study of charismatic Christianity, which I think I have shown it is. Why would it turn up in an academic dictionary of Pentecostal and charismatic movements if it had no relevance at all to the subject?

Regarding my own bias, I have been upfront about that on the project talkpage, as I anticipated the issue arising. I am as capable as anyone of putting aside my own biases and writing from an NPOV. If you have a look through some of the relevant articles I have already worked on, you'll see that my edits have been fair and factual. Every user has his own opinions and biases, but the edits themselves must be judged on their own merits, not by the background or opinions of the editor.

You really have no foundation for making a judgment on my motives. I am theologically trained, I have a genuine academic interest in charismatic Christianity, and I have studied and read widely on the subject from all points-of-view. I have worked on charismatic-related articles quite happily with people who are at the complete opposite end of the spectrum, and had no conflict. The WikiProject is open to anyone with an interest in the subject, whether or not they have personal opinions for or against the charismatic movement.

David L Rattigan 11:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My background: I am a Southern Baptist. I am not affiliated with Calvary Chapel in any way. I am familiar with their church structure, their doctrine, etc, but I have never been a member of (or even inside) one of their churches. The closest "relationship" I have with them is that CSN operates a radio station in my area that I sometimes listen to.

My opinion on Calvary Chapel as a part of the charismatic movement: that I am aware of, Calvary Chapel has never self-identified as charismatic. To put them in that category is to take a position on the issue - to express a point of view. Further, looking at the , it looks like a who's who of the Word of Faith movement. These groups and individuals have little in common with Calvary Chapel and Chuck Smith other that they in some fashion believe in the modern existence of tongues. I cannot speak for members of Calvary Chapel, but I imagine that few would feel very much of a connection to the names on that list. I am of the opinion that listing Calvary Chapel in that category is incorrect. BigDT 04:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject is exhaustive in covering all charismatic and charismatic-related subjects. As Jaems said above, whether Calvary Chapel can be considered part of the charismatic movement proper is not strictly relevant. Including the template is not a label to say it is part of the charismatic movement, just that it is relevant to the subject. David L Rattigan 06:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ... let me ask you this then. I will admit that I am fairly new to Wikipedia. Is it typical practice to have "Wikiproject XYZ" contain articles on things that are not a part of XYZ? To me, labeling Calvary Chapel as part of Wikiproject Charismatic Christianity would be like labeling the Boy Scouts of America as part of Wikiproject Christianity. There are surface similarities in vague terms - be nice to other people, etc. The BSA had strong Christian roots in its founding. Someone from the outside looking in might even think that the BSA was a Christian organization, but that doesn't make it so. There are plenty of Christians who volunteer with the Scouts - I am one of them. But it certainly wouldn't belong in Wikiproject Christianity.

Similarly, there are surface similarities between Calvary Chapel and WOF/Pentecostalism, but that doesn't mean that CC has any real association with the charismatic "movement". Googling around, there is no shortage of links that mention Calvary and charismatic in the same breath, but I think it's important to note that most of them are deriding CC as charismatic. In other words, to them, charismatic is a swear word and they are implicating CC by association, but not based on any actual facts.

I found one article from a member of a CC - not a pastor, just a member - http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:YLGAbNTUjlIJ:home.wmis.net/~ixthys/fabuqa.htm+charismatic+%22Calvary+Chapel%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3 (scroll down to question 21) - where he says that CC is charismatic, but in the same breath, he goes on to say that he doesn't mean the same thing by that word that Pentecostals/WOFers use. (I would draw, as he does, a further distinction. Whereas Pentecostal churches may be errant in their practices, I have no doubt that they are Christian churches. WOF, on the other hand, is about the biggest religious racket there is - give me money, send me money, and I'll knock you over and call you healed.)

To be perfectly honest, my biggest concern isn't even about the word - it's that when I go to the category listing and look at the ones there, it's very easy to play "which one doesn't belong". Benny Hinn != Chuck Smith, Paul Crouch != Bob Coy. In my mind, that's the biggest thing I'm scratching my head about.

At any rate, I'm not at all involved in the editing of this article ... I was just over at the mediation page after following a link from the Christianity article ... I saw Calvary Chapel linked there and it got my interest. I just thought I'd put my $.02 in. BigDT 02:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the issues here that's been raised a couple times is the problem of lumping in churches like this with WOF preachers such as Benny Hinn and Paul Crouch. But Hinn and Crouch and their followers are just one part of the charismatic movement, and there are many aspects to the movement that are poles apart from WOF. There is no way we can use WOF as the yardstick for what doesn't belong, for that would give a very skewed picture of charismatic Christianity. Check out, for example, my recent entries on Michael Harper, Thomas Smail, Fountain Trust and David du Plessis - they're just as much don't-belongs with the WOF crowd. One of my motivations for doing this project was precisely because some of these other figures were underrepresented on Wikipedia.

Most of this particular criticism has come from a view that I think sees "charismatic Christianity" as equivalent to, say, TBN or WOF or televangelism. From a historical and academic point-of-view, however, that's simply not true. David L Rattigan 06:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to clear up another misconception: The Charismatic Christianity WikiProject is not a category labelling churches "charismatic" or "Pentecostal". It is an attempt "to build a reliable and comprehensive guide to everything related to Pentecostalism, the Charismatic movement and their offshoots and relatives." This should not be a debate over whether Calvary Chapel should be labelled a "charismatic" church. The issue is its relationship to the charismatic movement and whether it is relevant to the subject. David L Rattigan 08:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Roman Catholic whose primary interest lies in seeing all the articles relating to Christianity tagged by some project, so that project can assist in developing and maintaing it. I found this article within the Category:Charismatic and Pentecostal Christianity. As the Charismatic Christianity WikiProject states that it deals with all articles within that category, I have replaced the banner. I have also added the Christianity Project banner as well. I hope that this is an acceptable action. If it is found to be unacceptable, then I would humbly suggest removing the article from the category. Thank you. John Carter 21:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a time of great revival in Southern California. Many disillusioned hippies found themselves lost in a dying world. Drugs had turned out to be a dead-end, Love had become a four letter word, more correctly spelled “l-u-s-t.” “Peace” had also become a cruel joke when anti-war demonstrations became violent and even deadly!

So it was; that many of these young searchers found the Truth in a two thousand year old book. God poured out His Holy Spirit upon a new generation of believers, and many of these hippies became “Jesus People.” With their own music, and a new style of worship that embraced God’s Word. At the same time they rejected many “religious” traditions.

I have preserved these POV texts here, in case anyone wishes to refer to them for a rewrite. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:16, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Some of this article sounds like it was copied 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)

I've only been a CC member for just over a year but I've read the distinctives a number of times and just participated in a new member meeting. I'm pretty sure that the CC churches *do not* ascribe to Oneness but rather believe in a Trinity three person acting in one accord. See http://calvarychapel.com/library/taylor-larry/text/wcct.htm and http://home.wmis.net/~ixthys/fabuqa.htm#19. I've made an edit to the article based on the above rationale. HTH

The above post is by User:EricStephens. Please sign your posts on talk pages. It both saves us time and helps your credibility. Andrewa 20:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I and my brother both attend Cavalry Chapel of Philadelphia and It most certainly preaches Oneness. I restored the reference.--68.85.27.47 05:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you and HTH/EricStephens both clarify here what you mean by Oneness? Neither http://home.wmis.net/~ixthys/fabuqa.htm#19 nor http://www3.calvarychapel.com/library/taylor-larry/text/wcct.htm#04 (see also the following section there) use this precise term. I take it from your edits that it is connected to Oneness Pentecostalism.

It seems to me to be possible that you are both right, in that it may be that some within Calvery Chapel subscribe to this belief and others do not, or even that some are not consistent. But have you any citable references that would back up your claim? The websites quoted by HTH/EricStephens are explicitly and consistently trinitarian. Andrewa 20:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Oneness Pentecostalism page states that "Oneness Pentecostals do not deny the existence or divinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; they just deny that there are a multiplicity of persons, members, individuals, minds or consciences." In chapter 3 of Calvary Chapel Distinctives, Pastor Chuck writes "[w]e believe that the Holy Spirit is dwelling with a person prior to conversion. He is the One convicting him of his sin, convincing him that Jesus Christ is the only answer. The Holy Spirit is constantly testifying of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment to come. We also believe that the moment a person receives the witness of the Holy Spirit, Jesus takes away his sin. When anyone invites Jesus to come into his heart, to take over the rule and control of his life, we believe that the Holy Spirit then comes into that person's life. He is with each one of us to bring us to Christ, and when we come to Christ, He begins then to dwell in us." This paragraph is contrary to the Oneness Pentecostalism denial of a multiplicity of consciences. CC Philly may preach Oneness from the pulpit, but their own statement of faith indicates a Trinitarian view: "[w]e believe that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human, that He was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, provided for the atonement of our sins by His vicarious death on the Cross, was bodily resurrected by the power of the Holy Spirit, ascended back to the right hand of God the Father, and ever lives to make intercession for us."

On the same page as their statement of faith, CC Philly notes that "[i]t is not our purpose to cause division or discord in the Body of Christ, conversely, we long for unity among God's people of all persuasions, and we allow for a great deal of flexibility even within our own ranks. Calvary Chapel pastors are not clones who all believe exactly the same thing. Still, there are distinctives that make Calvary Chapel unique and which define our mission." In the spirit of 2 Timothy 2:24, it is not my purpose to cause division here, but to preserve the focus of this article on the Calvary Chapel movement as a whole and not just one particular Calvary plant. With this as well as my citation evidence in mind, I will be deleting the references to Oneness in the article. --JesusFreak Jn3:16 01:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you stop using the phrase your church, it's confusing and irrelevant. This looked at first as though you were replying to me, and of course I'm not a member of this particular church. Equally important, we try to focus here on the merits of the edit not the editor.

Duly noted, though referring to the phraseology as 'irrrelevant' sounds a bit rash. No misplaced focus was intended; I was merely trying to help illustrate the point that any CC member who contributes here is bound to find subtle differences between the main precepts of the movement and those of the CC they attend, hence the personalization. I've edited my edit to reference the original editor's focus on CC Philly and changed the indention to help reduce confusion as to the subject of my reply. --JesusFreak Jn3:16 02:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this edit removing references to Oneness, it's clear that this was at least so oversimplified as to be just plain wrong. Andrewa 02:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits were made to entries in the Concerns/Criticisms section to reflect a more NPOV.

On the contending for the faith link, the description was changed to be more factual.

On the open letter link, the statement that 'Arminianism permeates CC doctrine' was removed because this statement is shown to be false in Pastor Chuck Smith's book Calvinism, Arminianism, and the Word of God.

Removed the description of the 'critique' for two reasons: it was a non-NPOV description and the title of the critique adequately describes the nature of the link. JesusFreak Jn3:16 13:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most biased edit I have ever seen. Not to mention that you made major changes to the article without first discussing it in the talk page. I can’t believe this but you’ve even added your own POV in the criticisms section! “Criticisms” is where the criticisms go! You have misquoted people and actually changed the titles of their articles.

Also, you changed the contending for the faith link to your POV. “Well known” to who? You? That stuff needs to be cleaned up but now it is worse.

Wikipedia has four guiding policies, if you haven’t read them, you need to. You especially need to read about the oldest policy, NPOV and What Wikipedia is not

Oh yeah, what is so biased about the word “Florida” that you had to delete it? Not withstanding that the word “Florida” was in an actual quote. If you’re new to the whole quotation marks thing, let me lay it out for you. The words between this ” and this “ mean someone actually said that. Unless you have a time machine and went back to the event and using the Force, made them say something different you need to stop altering what people said.

I’m reverting to the earlier version by 24.155.201.139.

--Victoria h 04:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will take each of your points in turn.

I am admittedly very new here and was not aware that edits needed to be discussed on the talk page beforehand. If there is an official policy page regarding this, please point me to it. I've just read some of the policy pages you mention later in your criticism of my edit and did not see that mentioned. I do see that rule 6 suggests that when in doubt take it to the talk page - I did post the rationale behind my edits here immediately after making them (see section immediately preceeding your criticisms). I also note that rule 10 states don't revert good faith edits. My edits were made in good faith. Rule 11 states no personal attacks - your comments break this rule ("most biased edit", "if you're new to the whole quotation marks thing", "unless you have a time machine", etc.)

As for changing titles, I only removed a colon from one title because it appeared to be unnecessary punctuation.

To your 'well known' point: the original link description was biased and inflammatory ("Calvary Chapel is taken to task for its anti-catholic rhetoric" [emphasis added.]) So I went directly to the link itself and based my edit almost exclusively from the wording found on that link; the "well known" verbiage comes from the link itself! (I don't even know the guys - I was really trying to be gracious to the link and their point of view in general while simply removing the bias of the individual who initially posted it. In fact, I think I was being overly conservative in leaving in a bias that these gentleman are 'well known'!)

As for the "Florida", that was pulled out in a heavy edit of the overall link description. There is only one Calvary Chapel Ft. Lauderdale. (Aside - I think there may be only one Ft. Lauderdale in all of the US, but I didn't do an exhastive search.) While most of the original description came from the link itself, I modified it to include a more factual description of the context of the letter and included the date and title of the sermon, a factual description of how it was delivered, and information on how a reader could find and listen to the sermon in question so they could understand the context of the criticisms posed by the link itself and make their own judgments regarding both the sermon and the criticism. I realize now that I missed the fact that the entire description was in quotation marks and should have removed those. That was just human error.

I'm going to be reverting back to my edits and will be removing the quotation marks noted above so there is no appearance of misquotation. I welcome comments on how this section and/or my edits can be improved without simply reverting them away. JesusFreak Jn3:16 00:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I look at it again, no quotes need to be removed because they weren't there. The double apostrophe looks like quotes but is actually used by Wiki to put the description in italics. I don't feel so badly now. JesusFreak Jn3:16 00:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

If you are new and un-familiar with Wikipedia’s policies, you should not be making mass edits. If you hadn’t read the NPOV policy, then why did you claim to be editing for NPOV?

If you read ALL of rule 10 and not just the first sentence, you will see that I did not violate it.

You are not going to agree with criticisms of your beliefs. That’s the nature of criticisms. Wikipedia is not a place for you to censor things you do not agree with.

You can certainly add a section like “response to criticisms” but be careful that you don’t use your own opinion in accordance with Wikipedia’s no original research policy

On the saintjoe link, you removed an actual quote, which you did not agree with, but you added their positive description of the people you agree with. I fail to see how you were being “gracious” and “overly conservative”. You did not merely remove a colon, you removed a colon and 50% of the words of the author’s title! The colon was correct grammar in the first place. You cannot just make up author’s titles or a person’s quotes or delete them because you don’t like them, you feel that they are incorrect, or because Pastor Chuck Smith’s book says so. You are way out of line here.

If you must, put [sic] after the part that doesn’t make sense or if a word is missing put it in brackets to indicate that it is your word and not theirs. If you are unfamiliar with the rules of citing sources and quotes, you should not correct the work of others in this regard.

“When in doubt take it to the talk page.” Once again, if you read ALL of the rule, it advises that before making significant and controversial edits you take it to the talk page, not an after the fact, “Oh, yeah, I just made 18 (approx.) changes and deleted 214 words by multiple authors for NPOV.”

You called the criticisms section “inflammatory”. So you are saying that CC’s harsh criticisms of almost every other religion in the world including it’s fellow Christians are not inflammatory but their replies to CC’s criticisms are inflammatory?

CC cannot expect to criticize the religions of others without them responding. If CC is interested in making their criticisms valid, they should consider the replies of others.

The opening words of the criticisms section attempt to make it look as if only a small minority feel that CC has been critical of other religions. The truth is that this story has been broadcast on mass media and it has sparked debate on the internet. Nevertheless if only one verifiable source has a criticism, it is consistent with Wikipedia’s policies to mention it here. But let’s crunch some numbers here.

Islam 1.4 billion
Catholic 1.08 billion(of 1.7 billion Christians worldwide--68.85.27.47 20:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Atheists (incl Buddhists) 750 million?
Protestant 590 million (–CC’s numbers)
LDS (Mormon) 12 million
Jehova’s Witness 6 million

It’s likely that if they are willing to criticize these, that they also criticize others as well. That’s a fairly large number of people. I would venture to guess that almost all of them would not agree with CC’s assertions that their religion or denomination is false.

Do you disagree that CC strongly criticizes islam? Or that other religions have “noted” this strong criticism? I don’t know much about Islam but I doubt that when presented with Calvary Chapel’s teachings and statements they would say that you haven’t strongly criticized them. I think whoever used that word (it appears it was someone critical), was being very generous to CC. Just looking at the number of links here and also a few pages around the internet, I would say that it appears that there has definitely been a reaction to this.

I really think you should add a section with their responses. (But use real links and not explanations of how to search through CC Ft. Lauderdale’s archives like your last edit.)

We need to all come together on this and collaborate on something that we can all agree with.

--Victoria h 07:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

would it be possible to have another step in the outline of various calvary chapel churches? I am thinking under point four, have some sub points of some of the major affiliate churches. Ex would be 4.1 costa mesa, 4.2 fort lauderdale, 4.3 austin, and have some brief facts about each church—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.226.190.134 (talk • contribs) 09:13, February 28, 2006

I think we could have such a list in the "see also" section. This would set the standard for "major" affiliates at those that have Wikipedia articles. Currently, there are no such articles except Costa Mesa (that I know of). Maybe this will change. --Basar 06:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to help with this project. I can get a list of the larger churches from CCOF. I'm currently admin'ing the CCOF, CCCM, and Calvary Chapel website and can help with any other additional resources. --Calvary Chapel Admin

I'd like to see more on disaffiliation and the pastor being above the elders. I was a part of the disaffiliation of Calvary Chapel Downy under Mike Martin and the mess that happened after it. I can't seem to find much information on the topic. Cannedbeef 03:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been recently rewriting most of this article in an attempt to bring to to good article status, and one thing I would like to do is to change the style of the bibliography by using Wikipedia's cite book template. It's a template that automatically puts books into a nice and proper reference format. The documentation is available here. I think this will really improve the section by making our nice scholarly information look scholarly. Does anyone object? --Basar 23:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have questioned the need for the bibliography ever since it was added by an anonymous editor on 3/31/2006. It is unclear whether or not the references were used in the writing of this Wikipedia article and seems like a gratuitous addition straight from someone's college thesis. Most of the references are better suited to an article on the Jesus People movement and not Calvary Chapel directly (yes, I am aware of the link.) With that in mind, if your editing can directly site these references, then I endorse the use of the cite book template for them. Any that can not be directly cited within the text of the article should be removed. That's my 2 lepta. JesusFreak Jn3:16 00:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the bibliography seems gratuitous and generally unuseful to most of the article's readers, but the information is genuine, and I don't think it hurts the article to have it. Changing the citing format won't link the entries into the inner part of the article, it just reformats them. They also were not used in the creation of the article as I have rewrote most of it and used the reference feature to cite everything. References used to create the article are under references, and the bibliography section is used for things that might be of interest to the readers of the article but were not used to create the article - if that makes sense. I've implemented what I was talking about so you can see it. By the way, thanks for fixing my use of the word "apart". I would like to move the "movie" section in with the bibliography even though bibliographies are technically about books. The purpose of mentioning the movie is the same as the bibliography, and I think it helps the style of the appendix a lot to have them in the same section. "Movie" is not a standard appendix section. Do you or other people agree/disagree? I'd be willing to ditch the bibliography entirely, as most Wikipedia articles don't have one, but I doubt everyone would agree, and I don't think it's bad to have. --Basar 01:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it doesn't hurt the article to have it, but does it help? It just 'feels' unnecessary to me. As for your mention that the biblography is used for things that might be of interest - I'm having a difficult time differentiating that purpose from that of the 'see also' section. Would you agree that most of the bibliography appears to be related to the Jesus Movement? If so, perhaps we could move the bibliography entries to the Jesus Movement article; anyone interested in learning more about that movement could get there from the Jesus Movement 'see also' link on this article. As for the movie entry, I'm going to edit the article to move this reference to the 'external links' section with a link to the movie's official website. That seems like a very clean solution to me. Finally, I like your new citing format and appreciate and respect your efforts to improve the article. JesusFreak Jn3:16 01:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never noticed that they were about the Jesus Movement when I was editing them, but you are right. A couple of them might be about something else though. Overall I am neutral on the issue and won't be offended either way. My proposal for the criticism section is almost ready, so I'll just deal with that :) --Basar 05:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I decided that I think you are right so I moved the bibliography to Jesus movement. These two I didn't move and have chosen to save them here.

• Lewellyn, George Thomas, Ph.D. (2002). Toward the development of a methodology for the preparation and delivery of an advanced homily in the Protestant tradition. New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• "Postdenominational Christianity in the twenty-first century". Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (558): 196–210. 1998. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

--Basar 02:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the criticism section so that it would look better and make the criticisms more accessible to the reader. I want to propose it here first because I know this has been controversial.

It looks pretty good to me. One concern I have is that this new format does not include the context of the 'open letter' criticism. I think it is important for the reader to understand this context; namely, that the criticism is based on a sermon given by a guest speaker at one particular Calvary and that the sermon is freely available for anyone who wants to listen to it and critically assess the criticism. (Unfortunately, CCFL uses a Flash-based application that obfuscates the URLs of media links, so it is not possible to give a direct link to the sermon in question. This is why search instructions are included.) JesusFreak Jn3:16 10:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I had that initially in there, but deleted it. I could put it back as something like this: "Why I Am Not A 5 Point Calvinist" (mp3). Retrieved 2006-04-17. - the subject of the above open letter --Basar 16:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Implemented. The last two criticisms weren't because of the mentioned problems. If anyone wants to correct them please add them to the article. --Basar 00:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]

• A number of people have criticized Calvary Chapel's stance on Calvinism and Arminianism. They contend that the doctrine of free will is unbiblical and that God alone chooses those who will be saved. ^{[2] [3] [4]}

• Calvary Chapel differs from many other churches because they lack cross imagery. Instead, Calvary Chapel has a stylized dove which represents the Holy Spirit. Some have accused Calvary Chapel of being opposed to the cross as a result.

• ? ^[5]

1. I removed the Catholic site because I couldn't find a specific criticism on the page. It only had an advertisement for some CDs that may contain criticism. Since I don't know what their point is, there is nothing I can write about. Furthermore, I suspect it's Catholic verses Protestant in nature and not specifically about CC.
2. Three of the articles say the same thing about Calvinism, so I lumped them together.
3. I don't understand the "contemplative" site, so if someone else can understand it, maybe they can write a sentence or two about it. However, I'm not sure if it qualifies as "notable" - it comes off as fringey to me. It is also not based off of CC doctrine, but off of one pastor's book (albeit Chuck's son).
4. I added the thing about the cross imagery from the "practices" section, but I think it needs a reference before we implement it. I wasn't able to find any on Google.

Please feel free to give your input. --Basar 06:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Frisbee: The Life And Death Of a Hippie Preacher By Dennis Harvey A Jester Media production. Produced, directed by David Di Sabatino. Camera (color, DV), Di Sabatino; editor, Ron Zauneker; music, Larry Norman; sound, Zauneker. Reviewed at Mill Valley Film Festival, Oct. 16, 2005. Running time: 95 MIN. IMDB entry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.6.208.67 (talk • contribs)

Maybe, but since it's about Lonnie Frisbee, maybe we should put it in his article. --Basar 19:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I understand he was involved with Calvary Chapel in the early days, but his history belongs in his own article. I vote that the movie reference be removed since it is not Calvary Chapel specific. JesusFreak Jn3:16 13:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good rule of thumb – anything that requires more than one exclamation point should be dismissed as hype immediately. I don’t know anything about the film, but the multiple exclamation points above are sufficient to sway me away from investing any time watching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.62.16 (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Lonnie worked in conjunction with Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel movement.

Yes, we know that. What is your point? --Basar 17:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<Cut out to keep talk page clean.>

What exactly do you want us to do? The roots of Calvary Chapel are described in the history section, and the involved movements and ideas are linked from there. The logical place to put a bibliography about the different movements or ideas is in their own pages. --Basar 19:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Basar. I'm cutting these links from here since Basar moved most of them to the Jesus Movement page where they belong. JesusFreak Jn3:16 13:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this person hasn't responded, I reverted his edits. I actually think this person doesn't speak English very well which may explain the way in which the person has been communicating with us. You might notice that the person is involved in the "hu" version of Wikipedia. If that is the case, I don't know what to do because the person wouldn't be able to read our objections. --Basar 19:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Morpheusz 14:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe they are mutually exclusive. On a side note, many editors come to this article, like you, and related articles and like to talk about Lonnie Frisbee. What exactly is the attraction to him? As I've been reading Calvary Chapel's history, he seems to be a minor figure in about four years of their history - no more important than a handful of other figures (like Greg Laurie or Skip Heitzig). Just curious. --Basar 16:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Good article nomination for Calvary Chapel Association has failed, for the following reason:

Concerns about some of the writing.

• Calvary Chapel likes to think they are "striking a balance between extremes" - sounds like promo material.
• Although Calvary Chapel believes in the continuing efficacy of the gift of tongues, they do not recognize uninterpreted tongues spoken to the whole congregation to be those inspired (or at least directed) by the Holy Spirit because of their understanding of 1st Corinthians 14. - this really makes no sense to me.
• Calvary Chapel is strongly pretribulationist and premillennialist - these terms need explaining.
• Criticisms section is a bullet pointed list - it should be prose.
• 'See also' sections should be avoided - if the articles listed are relevant, they should already be linked in the text. Worldtraveller 12:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to dispute a few of the facts presented and the wordings used in the section "Calvinism and Arminianism" (not to mention the overall sloppy grammar and style).

First of all, the statement that "[the Calvary Chapel doctrine regarding human depravity] is in contrast to Arminianism which believes that there is still some good left in man" is downright false. Total depravity is the one point on which Arminians and Calvinists agree--see Article III of the Five articles of Remonstrance. The difference is in how Arminians and Calvinists believe one can come out of total depravity and into salvation, which is an entirely different point.

Also, the last point in the section seems to imply that Arminians firmly reject the perseverance of the saints, which is not *necessarily* true; Arminius himself never fully decided on the issue one way or another and the Five articles of Remonstrance don't take a firm position on the issue (though Wesley did). (This point might not necessarily need correction--we can't cover every possible base--but it did catch my eye.)

Does anyone care to dispute this before I make corrections? Cricketseven 04:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that Arminianism=Arminius any more than Calvinism=Calvin or even Christianity=Christ. I don't think there's any debate whether Arminianism (regardless whether it reflects accurately what Arminius believed) entails a rejection of the Perseverance of the Saints, is there? David L Rattigan 05:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Calvinism vs. Arminianism section, I corrected the statement that on the point of a believer's security, Calvary Chapel agrees with Arminianism--the believer stays saved. This belief, also known as "once saved always saved" or "OSAS", is Calvinist, not Arminian.Jlujan69 05:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, in the Calvinism vs. Arminianism section, I wanted to clarify the difference between the two viewpoints regarding the condition of man. Both sides agree that man, left to himself, is unable to choose righteousness because he is naturally depraved. It takes divine intervention and the grace of God to change this. The extent of divine intervention is where the two sides disagree. Calvinism says that man is so depraved that God must effectively cause man to choose righteousness, whereas Arminianism teaches that while man is depraved, God can and does enable man to choose righteousness. Under Calvinism, God basically makes man choose salvation while under Arminianism, an "enabled" man makes the choice. I made basic corrections to the text, but didn't say as much as I did here.Jlujan69 06:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, obviously we don't have a consensus as to whether the criticism of the "Phoenix Preacher" site should be listed or not. Personally, I don't think it adds anything to the article, as the text routinely states that it is biased against certain actions of individuals and churches. What to do? --Joe Sewell 16:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote for deletion. It's not an encylopedic source (it's a blog for goodness sakes!) 66.56.66.106 16:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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~~

The sentence "Criticisms have risen from accusations that members of Calvary Chapel criticize faiths which they believe to be false, particularly Mormonism" is noted as needing fact-checking. Yet there is a reference [1] which is noted as "This link is only a CC essay against Mormonism, not a link showing a criticism regarding it." The link leads to the official church page's library and the text contains passages such as "Mormons go directly against the Word of God". For me, this seems to be a good reference. What am I missing? Tierlieb (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am missing the whole criticism section on that one now... agenda-driven vandalism? Tierlieb (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User 66.56.66.106 and I seem to be reverting each other over a minor linking issue, so I thought I'd seek a 3rd opinion or provide a venue for 66.56.66.106 to respond. People who don't know what pretribulationist means should be able to click on the word and quickly derive the definition. A piped link to the pre-trib section of the Rapture article (Rapture#Pre-Tribulation) provides a clear definition. A piped link to the rapture article at large does not. Please comment, though I don't see how anyone else could possibly care.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it an edit war, per se. However, your original reason for changing (completely removing, actually) the link was because it is "not a useful link for those unfamiliar with the term". The term itself only makes sense in the context of rapture. It is likely that someone clicking on the link because they are unfamiliar with the term will also be unfamiliar with the term 'rapture.' The link has remained constant for some time; it should remain so until others have a chance to weigh in, if necessary. 66.56.66.106 22:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on adding several entries to the criticism section. One in particular has been repeatedly reverted though it has multiple soucrces. It refers to Chuck Smith being involved with a movement to rebuild the Jewish temple on the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock. Chuck Smith is quoted directly by multiple authors on this subject. I do not want to engage in an edit war and am interested in feedback on how to improve these entries. Please bear in mind that this is neither a pro-Calvary Chapel, nor an anti-Calvary Chapel article. It is an Encyclopedia article. These are historically important criticisms that belong in a reference work. I am sure the input of other editors will improve the text. Simply removing material without engaging discussion does not seem appropriate in the long run.24.1.47.198 (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC) I am proposing adding this material due to its historical significance. See below:24.1.47.198 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A variety of criticisms focus on extremes related to End Times beliefs:

• Richard Abanes points out the disillusionment caused by 1981 time-line Smith had suggested for the rapture . Abanes quotes Smith: “Forty years after 1948 would bring us to 1988….From my understanding of the biblical prophecies, I’m convinced that the Lord is coming for His Church before the end of 1981.” Members of Calvary Chapel anxiously anticipated the event, according to Abanes. He notes a quotation of Smith at a 1981, New Year’s Eve church service, reported by the Gazette Telegraph. Smith said: “If we’re here at this time next year, I will be very surprised.” Abanes writes: “When the rapture did not occur, Smith and his congregation were quite surprised….”^[1][2]

• Several authors who criticized involvement of the Christian right in the Arab-Israeli conflict refer to Chuck Smith’s association with a movement to rebuild Solomon's Temple on or near the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. They argue that by the mid-eighties some pre-millennial church leaders, such as Smith, went beyond simply hoping for the rapture. ^{[3] [4] [5][6]} In September 1984, writer Grace Halsell reported that Calvary Chapel gave $25,000 to Terry J. Reisenhoover’s Jerusalem Temple Mount Foundation. The foundation, she wrote,“raises money for Jewish West Bank militants” and helped provide funds to Stanley Goldfoot. According to her interview with foundation chariman Reisenhoover, Goldfoot was said by him to be “a very solid, legitimate terrorist…He has the qualifications for clearing a site for the temple.” Chuck Smith, according to Halsell, said he had “a common interest” with Goldfoot “in seeing the temple rebuilt.”^[7] David S. New quotes an interview in which Smith said “Do you want a real radical? Try Stanley Goldfoot. He’s a wonder. His plan for the Temple Mount is to take some sticks of dynamite and some M16s, and blow up the Dome of the Rock and al Aqsa Mosque, and just lay claim to the site.”(p. 130) While soliciting donations to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple, Goldfoot is reported by these sources have given a talk at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa(though Halsell notes, in this instance, Goldfoot never mentioned using violence).
• The Los Angeles Times compared statements by Chuck Smith, following the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, to widely denounced remarks of Jerry Falwell. “Pastors such as Smith and Falwell and television host Robertson have taken it even one step further. They have said U.S. Supreme Court decisions supporting the separation of church and state, the acceptance of the “homosexual life style,” and millions of abortions contributed to last weeks attacks. “ ^[8]

Other editors should take a look, for the sake of objectivity, at Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ articles in Wikipedia. Also, on the political/theological flip side, see Jerry Falwell. Known controversies are included in the body of these articles and include lengthy references to the issues that developed. Calvary Chapel does not typically make national headlines. But the above criticisms have been in print for a long time, Halsell's for decades. The question in an editors mind should not be "but this can't be true" or "this misrepresents my church," but rather, is the source valid? The complete text of an early article by Halsell can be reviewed at http://www.ameu.org. The article is called "Shrine under Siege." The same material was published in her book "Forcing God's Hand: Why Millions Pray for a Quick Rapture --- And Destruction of Planet Earth." Reacting angrily to the title of her book, for example, is not a meaningful editorial response. Halsell was a Christian author who actually left her job in the White House and used die to change the pigment of her skin in order to research what became a best seller called "Soul Sister" which gave an eye opening perspective on how African Americans were treated in the United States. Halsell died from a skin malignancy that was probably caused by the die she used. She was a world famous journalist and author. If you read her articles, she is clearly attempting to defend her faith from what she sees as destructive extremes. You might disagree with her perspective. But her research has been in print since 1984 and remains unchallenged. I'm sure when she published Chuck Smith had an opportunity to review what she wrote. I think what she found alarmed her, hence the alarming title. A biographical sketch of Halsell states that in 1996 "Texas Christian University’s journalism department named her the Green Honors Chair Professor of Journalism." This is available at http://libnt4.lib.tcu.edu/Spcoll/www/finding%20aid_files/Halsell%20-%20MS6.pdf at24.1.47.198 (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia rules, silence is considered a sign of consensus. I will wait an additional 24 hours before posting this to the criticism section again. Any feedback in the interim will be much appreciated.Don Van Duyse (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between criticism and attack. For example, take Stanley Goldfoot. The guy speaking one time in a Calvary Chapel is just guilt by association - it's not the same thing as Jeremiah Wright where he was Obama's pastor for years, Obama could no more disavow him than he could disavow his mother, etc. Goldfoot, according to all of the sources, spoke ONE TIME in Calvary Chapel over 20 years ago. According to [2], he did not tell Calvary Chapel about his plans to destroy the temple. Trying to turn this article into a dissertation on Stanley Goldfoot is not appropriate - there are 1000 Calvary Chapels and the guy spoke in one of them one day. Smith, like substantially every evangelical Christian, believes that the Jewish Temple will be rebuilt someday as a matter of theological truth. That isn't the same as believing that the Dome of the Rock will be destroyed, supporting the destruction of the Dome of the Rock, conspiring for it, or anything like that. There's no justification for turning this thing into an attack piece. --B (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours? A little short, isn't it? Still, I'm responding in less time than that. :) One thing to note about Calvary Chapel, as described in the article, is that it's not merely Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa, CA, where Chuck Smith teaches. As B points out, not every Calvary Chapel follows precisely the same thought patterns; one CC teacher can disagree with another regarding minutae such as this. While this may be pertinent information, as it has been presented it comes off much more like an attack on Chuck Smith; thus, it really doesn't fit into this article. --Joe Sewell (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with B. This is unencyclopedic. There are forums where this information might be accepted, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Additionally, I checked your online source that stated 'Chuck Smith, according to Halsell, said he had “a common interest” with Goldfoot “in seeing the temple rebuilt.”^[9]'. If you read the source, it is referring to "Chuck Smith of a Calvary Baptist Church in California" [emphasis added], not Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa. So this so-called Goldfoot association is not with Calvary Chapel, but a completely different church that is not affiliated with the movement. How many of your other 'sources' are actually referring to some other Chuck Smith? Given your edit history, it appears that you are focused on bringing negative information against CC into Wikipedia even if that information is inadequately sourced and that moving this information to a discussion forum is simply a way of pushing your agenda here since it is not surviving the main page. I move that this discussion section be stricken, as well. 71.203.159.204 (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I am trying to do is boil down the real criticism that Halsell and others are making which according to their texts is about a problem that occurs when people who believe in a pre-millenial interpretation attempt to translate that belief into financial and political support for people who might act violently. This is not an attack on Chuck Smith at a personal level. These authors are primarily quoting Chuck Smith and the people involved in this movement to rebuild (and as Chuck Smith said, perhaps blow up) the mosque. The references to Stanley Goldfoot are made because Smith's support for Goldfoot is a key example these writers used to develop this more general criticism. My own assessment is that the use of quotations related to Stanley Goldfoot helps to maintain NPOV. In fact,the Goldfoot quotes make the point that the several authors were making about this situation pretty succinctly. I've refrained from saying anything about Goldfoot that is not directly related to his specific associations with the foundation, Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel. I am thinking of creating a Stanley Goldfoot page because he is a pretty interesting and unusual historical figure. I am not particularly happy with this stylistically but I am trying to boil it down. Certainly, this should not be treated as a general criticism of Calvary Chapels every where. I don't think simply including critical information like this implies a general attack. You will have to let me know what is causing this information to appear like a general attack. Can a fact be an attack? But Chuck Smith is the founder. I don't think anyone will debate the enormous influence he has on other CC pastors, etc. We don't know that Goldfoot didn't visit other Calvary Chapels, do we? This is an important moment in CC history that should be noted. It would be great if there were published sources that gave us more perspective on this issue. How many churches did Goldfoot visit? How much money was donated? It is a snap shot of a movement to rebuild the temple that the authors provide to make a bigger point. I think I've captured that with the quotations.24.1.47.198 (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after reading all that, I am left with the question: "so what?" I'm not at all convinced that it belongs in an encyclopedic article on Calvary Chapel. Perhaps some other article, even one on Chuck Smith himself, but not this one. --Joe Sewell (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My contention is that its appropriate because it has a well established place in world history according to these authors. The escatology promoted by Calvary Chapel, and activism by Calvary Chapel's founder, has had an impact well beyond debates about Christian doctrine. I admit there is a real awkwardness here in presenting the information so that it works as an encyclopedia entry. Thanks for the feedback. I will go back to the drawing board and post a future revision to the discussion page for feedback. Thanks. 24.1.47.198 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue for this entry right now because it will take more work to get the sources right and the wording right and it is a very controversial topic. As noted above the article that is accessible on-line refers to Calvary Baptist church (I assume it was a mistake by Halsell). I missed this when I reread the article. Halsell's book refers to Chuck Smith at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa but I obviously can't use a source with that kind of error. The body of sources are accurately reflected in my entry but I could not refer to the financial donation since that appears only in earlier article. I don't expect to pursue this further right now. Thanks for your feedback. In the future I will post a proposed controversial entry to the discussion page. Thanks for your time and attention. 24.1.47.198 (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am gradually finding more published works and expect this might take weeks or months. For example,in the interim, see "Terror at the Holy of Holies" by Yaakov Ariel in "The Journal of Religion & Society." at http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2007/2007-5.html. Per the site this journal "is a cross-disciplinary, electronic journal published by the Rabbi Myer and Dorothy Kripke Center for the Study of Religion and Society at Creighton University." It is an academic Journal. Most encyclopedic. And provides a succinct summary of the JTF (Jerusalem Temple Foundation), Goldfoot, Chuck Smith, Costa Mesa relationship I have tried to summarize.24.1.47.198 (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a draft in a format that I think is more encyclopedic. I' like other editors to note any further objections on the grounds of encyclopedic vs. encyclopedic. After a protracted series of circulation requests at my local library, I will have all of the sources. The initial sources for the below have been previously noted. Gershom Gorenberg, End of Days, David S. New, Holy War, Grace Halsell, Forcing God's Hand, Grace Halsell, Shrine Under Siege, Yakov Arierl, Terror at the Holy of Holies, Richard Abanes, End Time Visions, Los Angeles Times.

Various critical views regarding Calvary Chapel and Chuck Smith focus on potential misuse of End Times beliefs. Smith had suggested a time line for the rapture in 1981. According to Christian researcher Richard Abanes, strong anticipation resulted in anxiety and then disappointment for some believers who left the church. A September 22nd, 2001 Los Angeles Times article "In Aftermath of Attacks, Talk of 'End Days' Soars," compared Smith’s claims during the preceding week to widely denounced remarks by Jerry Falwell. According to writer William Lobdell, Smith told overflow crowds in Costa Mesa that homosexuality, Supreme Court decisions, and millions of abortions showed why God allowed the terrorist attacks to happen. “Such biblical interpretations of the end times…” Lobdell notes””… trouble both liberals and many conservatives.” Successive authors have referred to Smith’s Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa as an historic example of a pre-millennial church intervening in Arab-Israeli affairs to fulfill apocalyptic events. Following Smith’s interpretation, Calvary Chapel pastors generally hold that Solomon’s Temple must be rebuilt at its original site in Jerusalem in order for Christ to return. But since 705 A.D., the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock have stood on the ruins of the Jewish temple. Authorities have warned of the loss of life that might be touched off by unwanted interference there. The 2500 seat Costa Mesa facility, at Smith’s invitation, hosted a fundraising talk by Stanley Goldfoot of the Jerusalem Temple Foundation. This foundation was engaged in controversial preparations for rebuilding the temple. While Smith is reported to have spoken of Goldfoot’s propensity to act violently and seize the holy site, use of violence was not mentioned during Goldfoot’s lecture in Costa Mesa. Evangelical donations were ultimately used by him to pay legal fees for a group of Jewish militants arrested during a bombing attempt. And Goldfoot also contacted physicist Lambert Dolphin and arranged, with Calvary Chapel funding, a survey of the Al-Aqsa complex using wall penetrating radar, seismic sounding, and aerial photography. This activist research group sought to outline buried temple remains--a necessary step, in their minds, to rebuild. The project was stopped by Israeli police. It had sparked an angry protest by Muslim worshipers.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources

Below are four sources for the 1981 rapture time line. I am quoting sections of the texts of these authors. Three authors place the event in its historically significant context of following the publication of the Late Great Planet Earth. Abanes also refers to 1981 on his own time line of historically significant failed predictions on pg. 340 of "End Time Visions." As noted below, he identifies Chuck Smith as one of the most influential promulgators for the Lindsey time line. This directly effected members of Calvary Chapel. In an interview with the LA Times, Chuck Smith Jr. also refers to his father's Rapture prediction.

Gorenberg, The End of Days, p. 123 ”CHUCK SMITH took this logic a step further: He hoped for history's turning point at the start of the eighties. A longtime associate explains the logic: 1988 was a likely time for the Second Coming. Allowing seven years for the Tribulation, that might just put the Rapture in 1981. "Chuck Smith is very focused on the Rapture," says the associate, and "was really focused on 1981." Nineteen eighty-one passed— and Smith said nothing about the missed date. His flock was left to wonder. Asked years later about the prediction, he shrugs it off as a mere possibility he raised. The expectation of apocalypse remains valid, he says; he's still part of the generation that saw Israel created. But whatever questions he asked, answers he found for why 1981 went quietly by, he's not discussing—perhaps not even with himself.”

Abanes p. 326 END-TIME VISIONS“In the 1970—1980s, for instance, a significant number of individuals attending the widely respected Calvary Chapel system of churches experienced this kind of unfortunate disappointment. For many years the church's founder, Pastor Chuck Smith, had been suggesting that the year 1981 would bring the rapture. In his 1978 booklet Future Survival., Smith declared: "Forty years after 1948 -would bring us to 1988. . . . From my understanding of biblical prophecies, I'm convinced that the Lord is coming for His Church before the end of 1981 ."82Smith based his belief primarily on Hal Lindsey's prophetic timetable as found in the original edition of The Late Great Planet Karth. When no rapture came at the expected time, numerous followers were stunned; some eventually left the church altogether.”

Abanes, Richard, Chapter 11, pp. 412-413 End Note 81. “Chuck Smith — founder of the worldwide Calvary Chapel system of churches, which as of 1992 had an estimated attendance of 230,000 conservative Christians (National and International Religion Report, 1992, 8) — was one of the most influential Christian leaders to have propagated Lindsey's 1981 timetable….As late as December 31, 1981, Smith continued to hold out for the rapture. During a special New Year's Eve church service packed with trusting followers, he proclaimed: "If we're here at this time next year, I will be very surprised." Chuck Smith, quoted in Steve Rabey, "Warning: The End Is Near, Again," Gazette Telegraph, December 28, 1991, Dl. When the rapture did not occur, Smith and his congregation were quite surprised, as were a vast numbers of other Christians who had bought into Lindsey's calculations. During a 1989 interview with William Alnor (Alnor, pp. 41^2), Smith would only admit to having come "close to" date-setting, maintaining that he had not taught it "as scriptural dogma." It was merely his "personal conviction that Christ was coming before 1982." Then, during a December 27, 1996 talk-radio program (Chuck Smith, To Every Man An Answer, KWVE, December 27, 1996). Smith distanced himself even further from the situation by claiming that he had never named a rapture date! A listener who called the show asked Smith if either he or Calvary Chapel had ever made a "prediction of Christ's return." The response was less than accurate: "No, uh, never, we all, we do believe he's going to return soon, and, uh, but, never any date. No. No. No. Never any date because no man knows the day or the hour." 24.1.47.198 (talk)

A 3rd reference in a historical reference work notes Smith’s timeline for the rapture. The Jesus People Movement: An Annotated Bibliography and General Resource. By David DiSabatino. Bibliographies and Indexes in Religious Studies 49. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1999. xiv + 257 pp. DiSabatino in reference 0221 on pg. 68 qotes Smith from “The Soon to Be Revealed Antichrist. Costa Mesa, CA: Maranatha: "we are living in the last generation, which began with the rebirth of Israel in 1948" (p. 3), and also, "the coming of Jesus Christ is so close that I believe the next major event will be either Russia invading Israel or the Church being caught up. It's a toss-up as to which is coming first" (p. 45). Includes some interesting interpretational oddities that are not adequately explained; "the number thirteen is the number of Satan. Every name for Satan (dragon, devil, deceiver, etc.) is divisible by thirteen" (p. 19).” Disabatino in reference 0222 on pg. 68 also summarizes and quotes Smith from “ Snatched Away. Costa Mesa, CA: The Word for Today, 1976”: ”Despite his warning against speculative dating, he implied that since the establishment of Israel there was probably about 40 years (or one biblical generation) left before the end; "That generation that was living in May of 1948 shall not pass until the second coming of Jesus Christ takes place and the kingdom of God be established upon the earth" (p. 23). “” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.47.198 (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fourth reference occurs in a recent interview with Chuck Smith Jr. "He also grew disillusioned with the Rapture, the notion that believers in Jesus will be whisked to God’s side during Armageddon. His father had predicted the end of the world would arrive in the 1980s, based on his reading of the Book of Revelation. He has continued, year after year, to announce its imminence with absolute confidence.The father: “Every year I believe this could be the year. We’re one year closer than we were.” The son: “To use [the Book of Revelation] for prognostication, to me, is just ridiculous"--ref Saturday, September 02, 2006 Father, Son and Holy Rift. Christopher Goffard September 02, 2006 in print edition A-1, Los Angeles Times.

See also: Religion; In Aftermath of Attacks, Talk of 'End Days' Soars; * Many who await the apocalypse find fresh evidence that the turmoil prophesied in the Bible is upon us. But scholars urge caution. [Home Edition] Los Angeles Times - Los Angeles, Calif. Subjects: Bible, Evangelicalism, Terrorism, Prophecies, Religion Author: WILLIAM LOBDELL Date: Sep 22, 2001 Start Page: B.18 Section: California; Metro Desk Text

Based upon the 4 sources for the rapture time line, each of which supports its historical significance (DiSabitino's is an historical academic reference work), I propose to add the below to the criticism section pending comment from other editors on the talk page. Based upon the historical-religious significance of September 11th, 2001, I propose adding the summary of the Los Angeles times article, also to the criticism section, also pending comment from other editors on this talk page. Below is the proposed text with references added. Each source focuses not only on Smith but on his interaction and influence on Calvary Chapel members. The assumption, as set forth already in this article, is that Smith is the founder, that he maintains a strong influence on Calvary Chapel as a whole, as stipulated by the "Moses" model of leadership held by Calvary Chapel in general.

Various critical views regarding Calvary Chapel and Chuck Smith focus on potential misuse of End Times beliefs. Smith had suggested a time line for the rapture in 1981.--ref--Gorenberg, Gershom. The End of Days:Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount. p. 123.--ref-- Abanes,Richard. End-Time Visions : The Road to Armageddon. Pp. 326, 412-413.--ref--DiSabatino, David. The Jesus People Movement: An Annotated Bibliography and General Resource. By David DiSabatino. Bibliographies and Indexes in Religious Studies. P.68 According to Christian writer Richard Abanes, anticipation resulted in disappointment for many, some left the church. A September 22nd, 2001, Los Angeles Times article "In Aftermath of Attacks, Talk of 'End Days' Soars," compared Smith’s claims during the preceding week to widely denounced remarks by Jerry Falwell. According to writer William Lobdell, Smith told overflow crowds in Costa Mesa that homosexuality, Supreme Court decisions, and millions of abortions showed why God allowed the terrorist attacks to happen. “Such biblical interpretations of the end times…” Lobdell notes””… trouble both liberals and many conservatives.” --ref--Religion; In Aftermath of Attacks, Talk of 'End Days' Soars; * Many who await the apocalypse find fresh evidence that the turmoil prophesied in the Bible is upon us. But scholars urge caution. [Home Edition] Los Angeles Times - Los Angeles, Calif. Author: WILLIAM LOBDELL Date: Sep 22, 2001 Start Page: B.18 Section: California; Metro Desk Text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.47.198 (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the above to the article on 7-24-08. It was reverted without explanation. Based on the significance of the material, the quality and number of sources, I am interested in feedback. Please indicate any further objections or issues with the material.24.1.47.198 (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added a revised version of the rapture/911 material on 7-27. 24.1.47.198 (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous revision reverted without comment. I revised for NPOV again today. Please comment. Don Van Duyse (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following advise was offered by an outside editor regarding the reversions being made without comment: "The IP user removing those criticisms may be a member of the church; I especially think their edit summary tends to be evidence of that. It looks like most of it remains in the article; if there is more removal of content, I'd say to tag the article with coi. If they continue, you can file a Request for Comment to try to get other users to give outside opinions." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.47.198 (talk • contribs) 09:41, August 1, 2008 (UTC)

Considering the continual revisions, reversions, and what has just about become an edit war that doesn't seem to be dying down from discussion here (my opinion is because of the nonsensical 24-hour time limit), I think an RfC is in order now. --Joe Sewell (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Material currently under discussion in "Request for Comment" below:

• Various critical views regarding Calvary Chapel and Chuck Smith focus on potential misuse of End Times beliefs. Smith had suggested a time line for the rapture in 1981. According to writer Richard Abanes, anticipation resulted in disappointment for many, some left the church. .^[10].^[11].^[12]

• A September 22nd, 2001, Los Angeles Times article "In Aftermath of Attacks, Talk of 'End Days' Soars," compared Smith’s sermons during the preceding week to remarks by Jerry Falwell. According to staff writer William Lobdell, Smith told overflow crowds in Costa Mesa that “…U.S. Supreme Court decisions supporting the separation of church and state, the acceptance of the “homosexual life style,” and millions of abortions contributed to last weeks attacks.“ “Such biblical interpretations of the end times…” Lobdell wrote ”… trouble both liberals and many conservatives.” .” ^[13]24.1.47.198 (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two criticisms regarding Calvary Chapel. See proposed material directly above on talk page. See also sources quoted above: Gorenberg, Abanes, DiSabitino, Los Angeles Times.

At a quick look thro', the proposed texts above look reasonably neutral, but the 1st looks too long for the importance of the topic. The 2nd looks about right. Peter jackson (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some views regarding Calvary Chapel and Chuck Smith focus on potential misuse of end times beliefs. Smith suggested a time line for the rapture in 1981. According to writer Richard Abanes, anticipation resulted in disappointment for many, some left the church. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]} A September 22nd, 2001 article in the Los Angeles Times said Smith told overflow crowds that court decisions, homosexuality, and abortions contributed to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The writer noted that “Such biblical interpretations of the end times trouble both liberals and many conservatives.” ^[5]

The above were reverted without comment. Comparing, in particular, the '81 rapture criticism to other material in the same section, I must note that it meets and exceeds Wikipedia standards. There are more than 3 sources. One source is an academic source. It is the best sourced material in this article. I see no basis for reverting this beyond the obvious. Certain editors sympathetic to Calvary Chapel dislike the information and consider it an "attack." This is not a valid editorial response. If there are other objections, please state them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.47.198 (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am finding that the fully sourced material above is being reverted without comment10-1-08.24.1.47.198 (talk)

The grounds on which this material continues to be reverted (without discussion) is that it is "unencyclopedic." The quality and number of sources is not in dispute. The material has been revised for NPOV based on feedback from various editors. Based on an apparent conflict of interest I am thinking that "unencyclopedic" in this case means unflattering to Calvary Chapel and its founder. I suspect that we will need to seek further steps to resolve this disagreement. I would certainly like more discussion and suggestions for revision rather than resorting to dispute resolution.24.1.47.198 (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A succession of authors refer to Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel as playing an historic role during the 1980s in sponsoring efforts to prepare for rebuilding Solomon’s Temple on or near the site of Islam’s third holiest shrine. Costa Mesa Calvary Chapel hosted a fund raising talk by Stanley Goldfoot, an Israeli militant who Smith and others claimed might act violently to seize the religious site. With the assistance of Goldfoot, Calvary Chapel funded an attempted geophysical survey to map ruins of the Jewish temple which are thought to be buried somewhere beneath the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock structures. An angry protest by Muslim worshipers, and intervention by Israeli police, ended their project. Calvary Chapel Pastors, following Smith, hold that the temple must be rebuilt at its original site in order for Christ to return. But experts fear that interference at the Jerusalem shrines will result in violence and loss of life.

I wonder if "Theologians" is the best title for this section. While the term can certainly be applied to a wide variety of religious thinkers, I expect that it is most commonly applied to writers who have advanced a distinct perspective of their own in a systematic manner. Much of Chuck Smith's "theology" is derived from others who originated the ideas. He certainly repackaged Darby (vis a vis Hal Lindsey), the Four Square Movement, Pentecostalism, Fundamentalism in his own way. Does that make him a theologian? Perhaps. But if the title is questionable for Chuck Smith, it is more than questionable for others on the list. Lonnie Frisbee, for all of his originality, could hardly be listed as a theologian. I think this points to a central flaw in this article. The real distinctive of Calvary Chapel is not theology, it's style, it's innovation in forms of worship. (See: Reinventing American Protestantism: Christianity in the New Millennium By Donald Earl Miller. http://books.google.com/books?id=BBWWeHnqH0YC&dq=Reinventing+Protestantism+Miller&pg=PP1&ots=KlEoFRntxQ&sig=6nusVLJAi_72lUN5gQ5snyugycw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result)24.1.47.198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

On 2008-10-27 at 0034 hours a Wikipedian reverted content on the article with the edit-summary "(Undid revision 247859755 by Pedant17 (talk) no offense, but the old version was better)" -- see the diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvary_Chapel&diff=247884890&oldid=247859755 . I would like to know how making the referencing less precise and lacking in accurate quotations makes a version better. I would like to know how removing detail from a reference makes a version better. I would also like to know how changing the phrase "Christian music" to "christian music" makes a version better. -- Absent comprehensive and specific explanations, I propose to restore my edits. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. WP:3O is only for two-editor disputes. This one appears to be a multi-editor conflict.
2. To the editors being reverted: I haven't looked at this in depth, but it appears you've already gone the extra mile in trying to resolve this civilly. If the reverting editors continue to do so without explanation or with frivolous/unsupported reasoning, you need to take this to the next step of dispute resolution.
3. To the reverting editors: Please review Wikipedia's policies on ownership, and these essays on tendentious editing and single-mindedness. To me as a neutral third party, you appear to be over the line - these may help you to see why and correct the behavior (or the misunderstanding, if such it is). arimareiji (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Calvary_Chapel

Decision of the Mediation Committee:Reject.This dispute is very much in its early stage: the content disagreement appears to have sprung up only a few days ago, and to date there has been little in the way of attempts at dispute resolution. I note that a third opinion has been filed—which is a step in the correct direction—but I'd encourage the parties to this dispute to try their hand at more gentle forms of dispute resolution before considering formal Mediation; filing a Mediation Cabal request is my overriding suggestion. WP:RFM/COMMON#Failure to demonstrate sufficient prior dispute resolution attempts will provide some useful background reading. On a further level, I would encourage all parties to this case to consider that the resolution of content disputes comes from exhaustive discussion in the first instance; edit warring leads nowhere—and indeed is disruptive—and will probably simply get you blocked. Avoid edit warring, and always bear in mind that the "other side" really does have something of substance to say! Good luck in your attempts at resolving your differences. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 22:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC) 24.1.47.198 (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Below is my summary of the suppositions of editors involved in this dispute. We've received an offer of assistance from an editor who feels they can offer more impartial/less partial suggestions to move the editing process for this article forward. I certainly accept their offer.Don Van Duyse (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues to be mediated

• Issue 1: Supposition that material is "unencyclopedic" and to be reverted without discussion.
• Issue 2: Supposition that material is historically significant, well sourced, and reasonably neutral in tone after multiple revisions.
• Issue 3: Supposition that material is an attack on a living person.
• Issue 4: Supposition that material is factual, sufficiently sourced in regards to a living person, and an appropriate addition to a section titled "criticisms."
• Issue 5: Supposition that criticisms by published authors about the influential founder and head of a church do not apply to the church movement in general and are therefore not appropriate for this article.
• Issue 6: Supposition that the specific criticisms focus on the direct influence of the founder and head of the church on the church itself, thereby making the information relevent to an article about the church.

I am the editor that has offered to help mediate. Thank you, Dvanduyse, for getting the ball rolling. I would appreciate it if other parties to the dispute would also start with a brief statement of the issues that you would like a mediator to address. Let's please not have any edit wars (which are always bad) on the side while we engage in discussion. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dvanduyse, looking again at your list of issues, it seems that there are three pairs in opposition to each other, with you advocating Issues 2, 4, and 6. Is that right? Also, is this all in relation to this paragraph that has been the subject of some edit wars, or are there more wide-ranging issues? Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the "bum's rush" the Mediation Committee chose (I was offline during the whole thing, and in that short time it got dumped due to false information, thrown out, and deleted!), and noting that the issue is not just a "few days old," I choose to give up on the whole thing! I should've known better to trust Wikipedia procedures. --Joe Sewell (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am advocating suppositions 2, 4, and 6 regarding the rapture/911 material above. There is further material about rebuilding the Jewish Temple that I'd like to eventually put through an editing process/discussion. Additionally, I'd like to see the editing process for this article to move beyond pro vs. con, promotional vs. critical, and for the article to integrate information in a way that ultimately improves the tone and content. Right now it is skewed in two directions. It should be in the middle somewhere. Thanks. Joe Sewell has now made the following claims about why the request was rejected by the mediation committee. 1)That the request for mediation was a "bum's rush." While I do not claim that I've exhausted every option, I did take many steps to resolve the dispute, including much activity on the talk page with little response from other editors. I accept the criticism that I did not exhaust every option. But I reject the emotionally loaded statement "bum's rush." The tone of Joe's response is uncivil and inappropriate. It sounds like Joe also claims that 2) the request for mediation was rejected because of "false information," that is was "thrown out" and "deleted." Perhaps I'm confused by Joe's response. Does he mean other editors found the material in dispute to be false? Or is he saying that the committee concluded the information in dispute is false? If the later, Joe has seriously misread why the request for mediation was rejected. Certainly, if I am engaging in putting false information on wikipedia, then I should not be allowed to edit here. No one, besides Joe, has suggested this. I've quoted sources at length. I suspect Joe is very frustrated by the critical information about Calvary Chapel. I think the best response is not to angrily withdraw from the process, but to offer rewrites that reflect wider points of view, preferably with sources to back up the rewrites.Don Van Duyse (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely clear on the basis of Joe's complaints, but I think the proper thing to do would be to assume that it is not directed at you. Unless he thinks it is important to press the issue and clarify what he's saying, my inclination would be to let that bit drop. I'd much rather work on writing a good article than try to sort out the actions of people's online personae. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to see a message on my talk page about this. No, Don, I was not referring to you, but rather to the Mediation Committee's rush to (a) reject the mediation on false grounds (it's more than "a few days old"), and (b) delete the corresponding page before I even had the chance to see it. Once I finally found it, I was frankly shocked. The COI tag just added further insult to the existing injury. --Joe Sewell (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion at this time: Other editors, please offer a rewrite or revision of the material under discussion. If, after a sufficient period of time, there is no response by others (let's say 14 days) then I move to add the material as is to the article. Again, the sources meet Wikipedia standards. When included, it will be the best sourced material in the article.Don Van Duyse (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that the opinions of Chuck Smith have nothing whatsoever to do with formal doctrinal positions of the entire Calvary Chapel movement and, therefore, do not belong in this article. Unlike the Pope, Joseph Smith, Mark Baker Eddy, or other founders/leaders of various denominations and/or movements, Chuck Smith does not speak for the Calvary Chapel movement; not all Calvary Chapel churches are required to subscribe to his views on everything. I fail to see the justification for putting his personal mistakes and opinions in the Calvary Chapel article. In fact, doing so would imply that it is the view of Calvary Chapel Houston, Calvary Chapel Melbourne, Harvest Fellowship, or any of the other thousand-plus Calvary Chapel-associated churches in the world; such an implication is false, though its verifiability is limited because a non-fact that is not explicitly repudiated in sources cannot be verified true or false. (Note that I'm not arguing against the facts that are posted & sourced, only that they apply to the Calvary Chapel article.) --Joe Sewell (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the COI tag. Here are my reasons:

1) No hard evidence has been presented that any particular user does have a COI. Insinuations based on the fact that certain users seem to be favorable to the subject are not sufficient.

2) Even if it were shown that certain users attend a Calvary Chapel church, that would not justify a COI tag. Would one say that Catholics are ineligible to edit articles on Catholicism? That Jews are ineligible to edit articles on Judaism? That Americans are ineligible to edit articles on the United States? WP:COI is meant to apply to people who stand to benefit personally from the advancement of a certain point of view. People who are honestly advocating for the truth as they see it, even if their point of view is influenced by their life circumstances, are doing exactly what every Wikipedian should do.

3) The COI tag, by its very nature, announces an assumption of bad faith. Furthermore, it has a chilling effect in that people inclined to be favorable to the subject may refrain from editing for fear of running afoul of wiki-lawyers. Assuming good faith on the part of the person who put up the tag, I do not claim that this was his purpose. But I do think it is an effect. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to removing the COI tag. I tagged the article based on a suggestion by another editor. They gave examples of edits they felt reflected a strong bias. Again, the material on which the article is based is largely internal to Calvary Chapel. It might simply be the case that existing sources are skewed between promotional and critical points of view. Certainly, being a member of Calvary Chapel or sympathetic to this movement is no reason against boldly editing this article. Limits with available sources places additional responsibility, on all editors, in my opinion, to strive to reflect multiple points of view in the article in order to enhance neutrality. There is a strong pattern of editors removing material that is perceived as critical of Calvary chapel without discussion on the talk page.Don Van Duyse (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BlueMoonlet, for removing the tag. I agree totally with your reasoning. It had a major chilling effect for me, especially when one considers that removal of most tags can result in block threats. --Joe Sewell (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through the discussions above, here are some principles I would like to propose regarding Chuck Smith's predictions that the Rapture would occur in 1981, his association with people interested in rebuilding the Jewish Temple, and his alleged comments on 9/11:

1) Previous versions of text added to the article have tied all three of these issues together under the banner of "misuse of end times belief". I don't think this is appropriate. Firstly, it smacks of WP:Synthesis to me. Secondly, it is not Wikipedia's job to decide whether people's beliefs are wrong or "misused", but rather to report what they are and what reliable sources say about them.

2) The 1981 bit is clearly reliable and relevant information. It might go into the "Criticism" section on its own, but I don't think it's appropriate to link the issue with other issues in an attempt to make a broad statement that CC's eschatology is harmful. It would also be appropriate to provide some context by saying that such predictions have not happened since. For example, I remember the possibility of the Rapture occurring in 1988 being mentioned as a possibility, but with much less certainty than is found in the Smith quotes regarding 1981. And another thing: this was all a long time ago; more recently, a focus on the End Times continues to be clear, but are there any reports of dates being mentioned?

3) In general, discussion of CC's focus on the End Times is certainly appropriate, but both criticism and apology should be avoided. Quoting critical authors is appropriate, within the bounds of moderation, as long as the prose makes clear that the opinions are those of the cited authors and not of Wikipedia.

4) The 1981 bit would actually be better contextualized if it went into the "History" section, but the problem is that that section is presently so woefully sparse that the 1981 bit would be completely out of place and over-emphasized if it went there as things currently stand.

5) I remember people at CC Costa Mesa talking positively, when I was a kid in the 1980s, about a group that was getting ready to rebuild the Temple. So it is reliable information, and wasn't just an immediately-forgotten one-time occurrence. On the other hand, never did I hear anything remotely resembling approval of violence or terrorism. I think it might be appropriate to mention this item in an article on Smith or on CC Costa Mesa, though again it should be stripped of commentary and insinuation. Given User:Joe Sewell's argument that what happens in Costa Mesa does not necessarily reflect the movement as a whole, I am unconvinced that it is relevant to this article, which properly focuses on the movement as a whole.

6) The 9/11 bit seems pretty weak to me. We only have one article in the L.A. Times Metro section,[3] so there is no evidence of a widespread pattern of this kind of thought, which would be required for this item to be included in this article on the movement as a whole. I would not even be comfortable in putting this in an article about Smith, because there is considerable evidence that the reporter is over-reaching. The only direct quote attributed to Smith says that conflict will inevitably come to a society that is committed to abortion. It is the reporter who connects the dots, tying Smith to Falwell and Robertson and characterizing them as saying (without any quotes directly attributed to Smith) that "U.S. Supreme Court decisions supporting the separation of church and state, the acceptance of the 'homosexual lifestyle' and millions of abortions contributed to last week’s attacks." Again, that's the reporter's characterization. To be blunt, I don't buy it.

--BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that all of this material would work better in a history section with more context. All of the sources are in effect talking about potential misuse but I agree that there is some degree of synthesis going on in order to reach that generalization. I will read the Wikipedia rules regarding synthesis. Regarding the 911 article, it sounds like you read the article. That's great. I listened to the Chuck Smith sermons on-line and really don't feel the LA times writer is reaching at all. His conclusion is quite mild based on some of the actual content of the sermons. A second source for the Smith 911 pronouncements is a second LA times article, Father Son and Holy Rift, which opens with the following sentence: "From his pulpit in Santa Ana, Chuck Smith’s voice thunders with certainty. He denounces homosexuality as a “perverted lifestyle,” finds divine wrath in earthquakes and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and promises imminent Armageddon in a deep, sure voice."

I think the temple material will require lengthy review of sources. There are many published sources, academic and otherwise, regarding rebuilding the temple. There is also a published book by Chuck Missler and Don Stewart, The Coming Temple, and Lambert Dolphin's web pages to work with for an "insider" perspective on the Temple issue. It is important historically in regards to U.S. evangelical involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and discussed as such by numerous sources. It is certainly significant from an "outside" perspective of people who do not share CC's beliefs and are looking at the effect of taking practical action based on escatological assumptions. There are many sources to back this up. I feel your opinion about the relevance to Calvary Chapel is premature and not based on a review of the sources. One can deny a link between the Pope and a given Catholic congregation (if you don't mind me borrowing your analogy), but the pope's pronouncements and actions as they reflect Catholic theology on the world stage are relevant to an article about Catholicism. Sponsoring preparations to rebuild the temple (and associations with Goldfoot, who had a notable career as a terrorist) is one of the most consequential actions taken by pre-millennial church leaders in response to their eschatology. Chuck Smith and others from Calvary Chapel were acting in a leadership role, on the world stage. It followed directly from, as they would argue, their literal reading of the book of revelation. When a church's theology, and its leader's actions based on that theology, have geo-political implications on a global scale, it becomes more than relevant to an article about the church. Every statement in an article about a church, does not need to apply to every member or congregation of that church. Anyway, we should focus on the rapture material for now. The temple issue will require more sources and discussion. I think we can refer to the rapture information with a little more context and leave it in the criticism section for now since it is an actual criticism posed by Richard Abanes. We can leave out the generalization in the transitional sentence for now. The rapture material should be fine on its own. I still think a religious leader's pronouncements on 911, particularly as they reflect Church theology, are relevant. It would be great to have more than two sources from more than one publication, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.47.198 (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I certainly do not cite my experiences as a reliable source. Their value, if any, is solely for the purpose of helping to validate and interpret the sources already cited.

Regarding the Temple bit, I agree that a conclusion about its relevance to this article would be premature. My point was that a connection to the CC movement beyond Costa Mesa remains to be shown. It would be your job to show it. As it is now, I think it would be appropriate to mention this item briefly in the article about Smith, and at more length in an article about Goldfoot and perhaps Missler.

The "Father Son" article may well be referring to the 2001 article, and thus not really an independent source. In any case, direct quotes are again not provided, much less context. It's one thing to say (just to consider possibilities) that conflict comes to people who do bad things, or even that God allows adversity to come to you in a bid to get your attention. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I don't find it so offensive as the facile "This bad thing happened to you as punishment for that bad thing you did." But I think outsiders tend to characterize it as the latter, and I think WP:BLP requires we have a very clear case before attributing that sentiment to someone.

On the Rapture bit, I think our positions are fairly close. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My contention is that Calvary Chapel largely employs the Moses leadership model. This means that Chuck Smith is the authority to whom other CC pastors and churches by definition look for guidance on scripture. It is not binding in a strict manner. But his statements, actions, writings are certainly more influential than other pastors, are preeminent in the CC system, and provide guidance. When Chuck Smith takes a provocative action he is doing it in a leadership role that inevitably influences many who follow his lead. It is common knowledge, I think, that Chuck Smith's sermons are recorded, broadcast, made available system wide. His writings are the most prominently featured on the main CC web-site, the most extensively archived, and I'm sure they are commonly referred to by CC pastors and members. Whenever someone writes about Chuck Smith, it is common knowledge that they are writing about the influential founder/head of a world wide system of churches. Particularly, his views on eschatology are not just a defining aspect but the defining stamp of his ministry and have become a distinctive for Calvary Chapel in general. If I were a Wikipedian writing an article about the Roman church near the end of Constantine's reign I would have to talk about the role of Constantine---his influence on the council of Nicea, his decisions to make war against non-Christians and efforts to convert them and expand the empire. I don't think I'd need to prove that Constantine influenced every far flung church and pastor. You suggest that I need to prove that the temple mount issue had a system wide influence. I believe that in matters of eschatology Chuck Smith's leadership role is self-evident throughout the system. If your reasoning applies to the Temple mount issue, which is one of the most frequently cited controversies concerning Calvary Chapel, cited by authors, academic and otherwise, wouldn't it apply equally to the '81 rapture criticism? What am I missing in the reasoning here?Don Van Duyse (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Smith's influence on the entire movement is quite significant, but that doesn't mean that every little thing he does is emulated. I guess the difference to me between the 1981 bit (and, BTW, I would avoid the word "criticism" and just stick to stating the facts) and the Temple bit is the prominence of the issue itself. I see "Hey, the Rapture is likely to be this year" as a much more significant statement than "Hey, there's these guys who are ready to rebuild the Temple when the events we are expecting take place; isn't that neat?" The first can hardly fail to be influential. The second seems more passive to me. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Coming Temple I think shows an common interest beyond Costa Mesa. The sources, when we get to them, show a more active role. Let's set this aside for the moment. Since you are mediating should I offer a revision, per this discussion, of the rapture bit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.47.198 (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]