Template:Todo priority

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 coppied from a brochure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not surprisingly the "references" section is empty.

I'm adding the cleanup tag.

--Victoria h 03:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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 (UTC)

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'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]

-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]