Talk:Greater Grace World Outreach/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 New Page 2 Merge 3 Article Rating 4 Cleanup / Wikify 5 mash up? 6 Why about the conflict? 7 Consensus 8 Legal Case 9 Conflict 10 Introduction: 11 Origins: 12 Predecessor Ministry: The Bible Speaks Lenox, Massachusetts 13 Lost Cause: 14 Lost cause: 15 Peer review 16 Response 17 In reaction: 18 Agreeable then?

New Page

Hi, I have been working on a new page for a while. Unfortunately, other things came up and it was never finished. You can see it at spinkava/GGWO. The new page is significantly more detailed and cites more sources. Please merge the contents of the other page into this one.Spinkava (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I have merged the two pages. I kept the cult allegations, as that is a significant part of the GGWO. However, I felt that it should not be the primary discussion in the article.Spinkava (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Rating

I rated the article start class becuase it gives a brief and basic review of the organization, but lacks important details such as how the churches are related to each other and making it clearer why the article is notable. I rated it low in importance because knowledge of the subject is not necessary to understanding christianity.Ltwin (talk) 02:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup / Wikify

Greetings, I am about to perform several BOLD edits, pursuant to WP:BRD. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some issues I see:

1. Can somebody please provide information as to the notability of this organization? All of the references are to internal, self published resources. Please provide some third-party affirmation of this organization's notability.
2. The history timeline is very fragmented with incomlpete thoughts. I placed some inline comments in the article (viewable only while editing) which should help point out some of the missing information.
3. This article looks like a mash-up of a pro-GGWO and a anti-GGWO article... which does not constitute a "balanced" approach.  :)
4. Please clarify on the "affiliation" of the schools/seminaries -- how are the "affiliated"? It appears to be a WP:PEA to make it sound larger and more notable then it really is.
5. The article begins with a standard "promotional" sounding paragraph, and then from there it takes a swift downturn into what appears to be a very questionable and cult-ish sounding organization, the bias changes from -- "we're doing something great, God's work" to a very unorganized, leadership troubled -- stay the heck away, type of organization. Again, I emphasis, that is how it "sounds" and "reads"...

Tiggerjay (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. This page is the result of a somewhat anti-GGWO editor and myself. This is why I asked for help from a third-party. To respond to your concerns:

1. I added more sources, including the New York Times & the actual court transcript.
2. I tried to fixed the history timeline.
3. I am not sure I might describe the affiliation. Affiliated churches simply agree to adhere to the same beliefs as the Baltimore church. There is no formal government.

Spinkava (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Notable references: I included some notable references and can provide a huge amount of them in regards to its notability. However I do not feel its fair to bury the article in a heavy manner in the negative as it becomes overwhelming with just a few. Their are so many sources for the legal, media, and similar it could take pages to read and report.

The history timeline' has been vandalized to the point of no return. Often when an editor does not like the content but cannot explain the change like the multiple moves of the orfanization they simply delete the thought. For instance the predeccor organization the Bible Speaks lost in Lenox so it moved to Baltimore. This information is deleted in multiple versions of the article.

mash up?

I certainly agree on your point here. Ideally the page would be not so much balanced as much but a information on its notability and information regarding it such as time line and beliefs. While I am sure many would take issue with that neutral does not constitute balanced always. In this case we are talking about a very controversial organization with signifgant media and legal history.

Not cohesive article. The article again has been vandalized and to some degree by both extreme sides of the argument. Ideally the major and notable aspects along with the history and refrences and current information would be idea for an article.

Tryster (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why about the conflict?

Hi! This page is getting much better, especially by the neutral, objective viewpoint. But most of the page is about the former problems. I don't think this is appropriate! There are much more great things to say about GGWO. Please consider Proverbs 17:9b "... but he that repeateth a matter separateth very friends."

For example, more could be said about the current leadership, practice and more about the doctrine. The page is only about past things. Take a look at what is there now today! Bende76 (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an enclopia article and while information about the current organization may be appropiate it is its history that gives merit to its article on wikipedia.Tryster (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That is what I was trying to do in previous edits. Every church has some bad history. However, bad history should not be the focus of the article. Everyone knows that the Roman Catholic church has some bad history. However, if you look at their article, it mentions some of the bad situations, but it does not focus on those situations.

GGWO is also notable for it's worldwide missionary work, which was mentioned in several sources. These sources include a book written by Operation Mobilisation & a newspaper in Azerbaijan. Spinkava (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Unfortunately, the Worldwide Church of God article is also tagged with several problems. I have contacted someone from the Christianity Wikiproject to help us sort through this matter. Let us wait for what he/she has to say. Spinkava (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Spinakava I am suggesting that we come to a consensuses and that we have a well referenced article including both accurate history with references that can be verified and even if so desire and others desire a limited amount of original research thats scope is not overwhelming like that of say the ELCA or similar denomination.

When I placed the article back online I as hoping that adherents to GGWO would welcome a balanced article with good research information on the current church such as its mission efforts.

Now it appears especially with some of the remarks and used expressions even on this page that they prefer to try and focus on a church that does not exist. GGWO is not the article I read from your own page.

It is not a mainstream Christian Ministry nor does even the current leadership want to be portrayed that way.

My hope that the eventual article does justice to why GGWO is notable and also asserts its history and current status to do less than that creates a lie or worse self promotion or gossip in the other extreme.

71.65.13.229 (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I be glad to trade suggestions and even different sections. But I do not want to hide signifigant history about the organization such as its moves, and growth, and how controversy played a part in them.

While the Worldwide Church of God article has issues it has to do with its lack of references, tone and similar problems. I cannot speak to some of the original research you

My suggestion is that this page be handed in a similar manner as the page for the Worldwide Church of God. While I strongly disagree with the idea that this article should be as balanced in the positive as the WWCG, I believe it would be fair to use the method as a template so long as the article here does not change known history or promotes significantly one point of view over the other with unsubstantiated facts or references.

For instance GGWO was not founded some 40 years ago. It is a successor organization of an earlier ministry. I am sure that there is a positive side and negative side to the ministry. Many Christian Denominations have articles here and I believe that most are genuine in terms of reported numbers. Based upon my research the numbers used by GGWO are near known numbers as others have suggested as such they should carry the same weight as say the ELCA number references.

I think the article should have refrences and historical data to demonstrate its notability like that of the WWCG and mention of those who have taken a part in its history in a similar manner as well.

I hope that is fair to those who have edited this article or have an interest in it.

Tryster (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Legal Case

The legal case is a significant part of GGWO's history. However, it is not the most important part and should not be included in the introduction. Furthermore, please use proper grammar.Spinkava (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree Legal Case is the notable history of the organization: Without it the organization is like other similar groups who have NO articles on wikipedia.

Just because something is negative does not mean its not the most significant thing about a person, organization or even time period. To somehow suggest that an organization known for its media history should not have its history in the courts and media mentioned in the intro is almost strange to comprehend. I went and read the Church of Scientology article, Cult Awareness Network article, and Worldwide Church of God article. All mention in the intro the more controversial; matters. It can be said that Worldwide Church of God article is balanced to some degree but having said that, we cannot state that GGWO has had a transformation from a controversial group to a non controversial group like the Worldwide Church of God. There have been media articles written just recently, as recently as two weeks ago in a newspaper about the organization.

Tryster (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It is by far the most important piece concerning greater Grace. GGWO is not notable for its historical standing of Christianity but rather its media and legal coverage. GGWO does not belong on Wikipedia in and of its Christian History. The legal and media coverage does indeed belong in the intro if it is to be included in wikipedia for that is what is notable about GGWO .Please do not vandalize this work any longer.

I added 20 some references only to have you remove them. Please note I cannot compete with a vandal.

If you want this article to remain here than be so kind as to be neutral and not pro the church. I am not neither for it or against it. But its notability is its history in legal and media circle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryster (talk • contribs) 20:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Conflict

Instead of having to hunt for new comments. Let's use this page to discuss exactly what we have a disagreement with. Please include new comments in the bottom.

1. Whether or not to include the controversies in the introduction. - We both agree to include the controversies. However, I do not think they should be the focus of the article.
2. Whether the missionary work of GGWO is notable. - There are several outside sources that discuss GGWO's missionary work, a couple of which I included in the article.

Simply put, this argument concerns the focus of this article: the missionary work or the controversies. Spinkava (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I also want to note that I do agree with the assessment that this article is of low importance to Christianity. Many other churches have made more of an impact. However, I still think the work that GGWO has done is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Spinkava (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Missed Points:

1. I hate to say this but the court transcipts available online are not the same as those available in legal catalogs and sources. Also TBS admitted to this concern. Both are verifiable along with the media articles.
2. Maybe so if it was just 60 minutes, but 20 some articles, millions of dollars, admission by its leaders both past and present, major splits, judge decisions, federal law enforcement investigations, admissions by former members including its highest ranking leaders, unprecendent coverage by bloggers (75,000 post on factnet, more than any other organization has been blogged about period including the Roman Catholic church, sure sounds like a much larger scale bit of notability than say a religious periodical. In regards to press coverage. We are talking notability here. While I am sure it seems unfair, but popular discussion, and notable are similar and while GGWO's investment in missions may be notable to Christians it is not exactly the reason non Christians would know of it or be interested in it.
3. You are stating a number that I was able to find on GGWO's official site and used in my original edit of the page. I have no trouble using the reference. However there is no way to independently verify it. We can verify in multiple places that dollar amount the bankruptcy court placed against The Bible Speaks, this is a verifiable fact. I will concede they may be telling the truth and accept as such. But to dismiss court decisions as pure speculation or worse unworthy of both refrence and notability seems illogical at best. It is not rather which came first here the chicken or the egg, it seems you are suggesting that a local butcher is somehow more important in an article about chickens than say the egg. I can live with the mention of the butcher in the article but please don't downplay why this organization is known and should be known. Tryster (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk about a conflict of interest? O think it would be a good idea if a person who is not directly related to this organization was to write a new page article for this organization.

The new article should reflect why this organization merits entry including the controversies that include the large civil actions, the media articles and similar.

GGWO's notarity is not as a result of its Evangelical tradition but its media, legal, and cult history.

Neutrality

For the record, I am not directly related to this Church anymore. This article has consistently been tagged for non-neutrality because it only talks about the legal battles and the cult accusations. There is much more that GGWO has done that is noteworthy. Spinkava (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note Spinkava use of the expression "anymore". However the edits that were done included removal of references that used common expression such as headquarters back to weasel words such as "Homebase" and discussions to "raps" terms that the discussed ministry uses as its on terminology.

Tryster (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I was simply trying to revert the article back to the version that was assessed and peer reviewed by Tiggerjay. If these were the only edits, I would not have minded. I concede that "headquarters" & "discussions" are better terms. Spinkava (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Introduction:

Greater Grace World Outreach is an affiliation of evangelical churches and associated ministries that emphasize Grace, the Finished Work, and Missions. Greater Grace was founded by Carl H. Stevens . The headquarters of Greater Grace is currently located in Baltimore, Maryland and led by Thomas Schaller.

The beliefs of Greater Grace are outlined in its doctrinal statement and detailed in booklets written by Carl H. Stevens, and other leaders of the church. Worship is non-liturgical but generally includes prayer, singing, offerings, and sermons. Songs are usually contemporary, but services may also include classical hymns. Evangelism and discussions that follow the services known as "raps", informal bible study, are also considered important acts of worship.

Greater Grace World Outreach under Stevens had a notable, and often controversial role in legal actions to a religious organization and as result law enforcement and media coverage.

Greater Grace is comprised of almost 500 churches from around the world, led by a pastor ordained by GGWO. Most of these churches are located in New England, Europe and Africa. Some of the larger churches are located in Maryland, Hungary, Azerbaijan[2], & Ghana. Most of the pastors are educated at Maryland Bible College & Seminary in Baltimore. However, there are many other affiliated Bible Colleges around the world. The ministries of Greater Grace also include Grace Hour, Greater Grace Christian Academy, Christian Sports Clubs & Verticalink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryster (talk • contribs) 00:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe this section is for the most part accurate and I will help provide other sources for the section. However CHS wasn't the creator of Telephone Time and it should be stated somehow that he was the eventual host, after the original leader vs being the developer. This is important in my eyes because this broadcast is as a result one of the oldest running types of radio shows in the USA.

Tryster (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Origins:

In the early 1960s, Carl H. Stevens, a bakery truck driver, was praying at Wortheley Pond, near Peru, Maine, and developed a vision that would lead to a worldwide christian ministry. Stevens was later ordained by a council of independent ministers at the Montsweag Baptist Church on March 7, 1963.[3] Stevens' ministry first operated from Woolwich-Wiscasset Baptist Church, where Stevens established the Northeast School of the Bible in 1972. In 1976, the school grew beyond its capacity, and so Carl Stevens moved to Lenox, Massachusetts. In Lenox, he established The Bible Speaks and Stevens School of the Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryster (talk • contribs) 01:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Predecessor Ministry: The Bible Speaks Lenox, Massachusetts

In 1976, the Bible Speaks purchased a college-preparatory school for boys in Lenox, Massachusetts, where they established "Stevens School of the Bible" and a Christian day school. At this time, several affiliate churches were established throughout New England. Eventually, they also began an international ministry, first in El Salvador and then in Europe and Africa.[citation needed] (I can find a few sources for this.)

In Lenox, Carl Stevens developed ministries including Telephone Time, Bus Ministry & La Gracia. Telephone Time was one of the first Christian radio talk shows, which is now called the Grace Hour. In 2006, this program won an Angel award for Excellence in Media. [4] The Bus Ministry would bring children from the surrounding neighborhoods to church on Sundays. In the early 80s, the Bible Speaks purchased a Norwegian ferry boat that they renovated into an international missions boat called La Gracia.

Dovydenas Controversy (I believe this should be a sub heading)

In 1986, the Bible Speaks was in the center of a major legal/religious controversy, that would be investigated by anti-cult organizations, investigations by multiple media groups,including several articles by the Boston Globe, Berkshire Eagle, New York Times, 60 Minutes, and many other media groups. (I will cite the sources and articles in references, there is an abundance of them.)It is alleged that the Ministry convinced heiress Elizabeth Dovydenas ([Dayton Hudson])retail chains) to provide a donation of more than $6,000,000. The Church was then sued for undue influence and ordered to repay most of the money.However, the church had claimed it had already spent the money and so it filed for bankruptcy.Eventually as a result in 1987, Carl Stevens and the majority of the leadership and many of the adherents of the Bible Speaks moved to Baltimore, MD, and established Greater Grace World Outreach and Maryland Bible College and Seminary.

Tryster (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Lost Cause:

Based upon the quick move of the edits I have done I will leave the rest to edit. I believe it is not sensible to have a ongoing debate that has lasted for such a long time and then even admins remove work that is barely even done.

I feel like even well written even balanced and neutral work will be so manipulated as to leave the article useless. While I am being extreme in comparison it is like we are talking about a negative subject and cannot be honest and forth coming using history. Like we are talking about Hitler and cannot bring up concentration camps, their death and leaders without them being edited out. Again I am not suggesting that GGWO is evil or even a bad organization in whole. But I spent hundreds of hours writing, pulling references and even being considerate of the adherents of this faith. I cannot sit back and watch my work become pushed away into an achieve.

If the editors of this page want to be honest and write a good article than it will be obvious. I believe it is fair to say that editors using words directly out of the mouths of leaders show where their motives lie.That is to promote an organization in the positive, white wash the history, and delete even the most important points regarding this organization.

Have fun, I cannot waste my time and watch my work destroyed out of some falsehood. I should not have even re-started this page. Maybe Tom Cruise would be a good editor for the Scientology page if this is the manner in which we are going to move with this article.

Lost cause:

Peer review

Clearly, more citations would be useful, possibly including a few from newspapers and the like. I question the abbreviated name "Greater Grace" as is used in the article, maybe GGWO would be better? Heading title "Former Ministry The Bible Speaks Lenox, Massachusetts" could be easily altered. Maybe "Predecessors" or something equivalent would work better. Subheading "Baltimore, Maryland" could also be changed. "However" starts two sentences out of three, could be altered. I'm assuming "2004-2005 Controversy" is supposed to be a heading, and maybe "Sandy Cove, ..." as well? "See also" line should be removed and names and information integrated into the text. "Beliefs and Practices" and subsequent headings could/should maybe be reformatted as well. More links could be added as relevant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by John Carter (talk • contribs)

I like all of your suggestions. For the record there are a lot of organizations with the name Greater Grace, including a large church near Detroit Michigan of nearly 6000 members.

Good Luck I don't think anybody is going to take your good suggestions and do them. I can't waste my time with people who want to fight to the point of bloody noses. I looked at the undo history yesterday and became obvious to me that those involved had one goal. To protect and promote the organization. The work I did was lost over and over again.

I had a huge set of references listed of media articles, including dates, organization, and title only to have them deleted away.

Why bother if the work is going to be destroyed?

Tryster (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Tryster, please don't take offense, I placed a comment on your talk page regarding the removal. Before we can begin working through the particular edits, the editors as a whole really need to come to a consensus on the objectives and goals of the article - we've already seen what happens when the editors are left to work on the article, that is why it was protected in the first place. To attempt to re-create the article here completely undermines the purpose of the protection in the first place. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The "hard work" you placed into it was not deleted, simply moved to the archive, see above. All the information is fully intact both there and in this page's history. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Response

Firstly, is it possible to extend the protection another week? I have finals for the next week and a half. Then I will be graduating from the University of Maryland the weekend before the 25th. I would like a week to pull up sources, particularly on GGWO's international mission work.

I am simply curious. Is 71.65.13.229 the IP address for Tryster? You both have the same style of comments. If not, I would strongly advise 71.65.13.229 to sign up for a username. When you editted the page last week, I thought you were a common vandal, and not one of the previous editors of the page. I continued to revert the the work of Tryster in order to bring attention to this page and bring in outside help as we strongly disagree on the focus of the article.

Tryster, this page is not your property; it is supposed to be the collaboration of many editors. You have done alot of hard work gathering sources. However, you have been consistently tagged for a biased point of view. I concede that I too may be too biased to write this page myself and so I am very glad that outside editors have stepped in to write this. From now on, let us leave it to the admins to decide the focus of the article.

In no way do I want to hide the controversies of GGWO. The controversies should definitely be included, even mentioned in the intro. However, I do insist that all controversies are properly documented. Particularly, I would like references to actual legal documents. News sources are often skewed towards what will sell the most papers or recieve the best ratings. Furthermore, I apologize for any GGWO jargon that I may have used; I will appreciate any edits to fix this.

Concerning the beliefs of GGWO, I think we should stick with documents that GGWO has published, rather than what was said in sermons. Preachers often use hyperbole as a rhetorical device. They therefore get in trouble for it as people no longer appreciate such devices. Therefore, such messages should be used in the controversy section and not the beliefs section.

http://www.carlstevens.org is the most comprehensive third-party source on GGWO. Unfortunately, the site is anonymous and so has questionable reliability. However, I do have to say that the original documents that I have seen match what is on that site.

To address a factual point raised by Tryster. A congregational polity practices local-church autonomy, which is what GGWO formally believes. I have requested a copy of their doctrine of affiliation to bring light on this.

I found several sources and posted them on the article. I will continue to find more sources in the next few weeks. I certainly believe in the WP:BRD mindset. Hopefully, we can come to a consensus in the next few weeks. Spinkava (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In reaction:

Note the use of these styles and information. I included a mainstream denomination which used both a info box and section about social matters.

On Congregationalist and congregational polity: Congregational church

Cult Awareness Network The former group taken over by Scientology and headed by George Robertson. Note the historical and legal references. Many of these references share a bond with GGWO history.

Rick Ross consultant Has a lot of resources including media and legal information regarding GGWO. He was a hired consultant by the FBI. He has interviewed George Robertson.

Worldwide Church of Godnote the mentions of former indivduals, its history both good and bad, and similar flow of information.

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America note the sections.

Unitarian Universalist Association and United Church of Christ both are congregational in polity and related history. I can't imagine making the argument that GGWO shares the same polity as the UCC and UUA?!

I am not opposed to constructive views on this article however, I cannot understand how somebody who knows the jargon can argue they are not related to something. I went to a store today and while there found multiple copies of "The Good News Magazine" long associated with the Worldwide Church of God, now associated with one of its offshoots. I am sure to many people who don't have an understanding of their organization or even a hint of their background would know much about their beliefs but when I go to the article on wikipedia at least it is honest in regards of its history both in terms of the negative and positives. I can say the same about the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America article.

In regards to sources. They bylaws of GGWO were available online. The church polity is not congregational in fact you will note that the Pastor is called "Chief Elder" and the references to how the church ended up selecting its Pastor shows the confusion of the role of the congregation. Local congregations are often controlled completely by their Senior Pastor and it has been this way for much of the history of TBS/GGWO. That is not congregational. Its is almost the direct opposite of congregational. Mike Marr help write the new bylaws of the church and CHS insisted that the church have a polity in which he controlled it, that there was no membership so nobody could lay claim to having a vested vote etc.

I have no issue with the use of carlstevens.org for most sources, and I have no issue of the use of much of the material for the original research from the GGWO website as long as its balanced against known history.

Note affiliation and polity practices are not the same matter. A church can have autonomous relationship with a denomination but practice a Episcopal Polity locally. The relationship of affiliation is not a written code in GGWO. There is no such document. I have spoken directly to Scott Robinson, Mike Marr, David Duff, Daniel Lewis, and Carl Stevens about this over the years especially when this matter was a hot controversy. CHS did not want anything to be used against him on paper.

Beliefs of GGWO: You will not find a written statement for instance on homosexuality from GGWO. You will never hear, nor in the thousands of sermons recorded of CHS will hear anything positive said about any homosexual. There is nothing wrong in my view of them having their beliefs. However we can not discount obvious views just because there is no official statement.

I want to be very clear about this. It would be very easy to make multiple articles about the controversies surrounding GGWO. The controversy of 2003 to 2005 in and of itself is worthy of being an article on wikipedia. The same is true with the Lenox situation, from the investigation of the church with the findings of the ATF and FBI field reports of weapons and like. But at some point this becomes heavy handed.

Again I thought for the sake of the positive points about this organization including the missionaries this article could be balanced and fair to some degree. In all honestly I do believe that the essential reason GGWO is known is for the controversies. There is a church in my area that sends as many missionaries, has as large of a congregation, has many strong views on doctrine as GGWO, holds fundamental views, views similar to those spoken of by GGWO etc. But I can't see how they would bring anything to an article on wikipedia.

But GGWO has some points that have not even brought up wikipedia. For instance GGWO was one of the first major published Christian websites, Its radio show may have been the first streaming web site on the internet period! The church in Europe attracted several important political people in much the same way as Hubert Armstrong attracted people to WWCG. That includes a former President of Hungary.

Congregations in various places have been involved in controversies of their own such as the findings of the French Government. The host of the Grace Hour is or was a Chaplain for the New York knicks who just so happens to be the son of a whistleblower himself of the Love Canal.

I do not lay claim to either ownership of this article or the truth. However the practice of destroying somebodies work and then intentionally suggesting you are not connected when even your terminology is obvious. I was connected to the WWCG for years and I could not begin to imagine being able to read an article where a person uses one of the catch word and states."I am no longer DIRECTLY connected to the group." If the shoe fits wear it and be honest. I hold both a negative view and positive view of GGWO. I am impressed as a religious writer and somebody who understands history that GGWO has done certain things. But that does not undo its negative side.

I disagree with you view on the press. The legal documents have such an incredible negative view of TBS. CHS, and GGWO it makes much of the articles about GGWO look so bad. The Judge in one of the cases refers multiple times to how bad the abuse of Stevens was. The former leader of the Stevens School of the bible testified in a way that made TBS look horrific.

The transcript concerning the connection of George Robertsons involvement with Scientology and its DEATH of an individual is well incredible compared to say use of words as "alleged" or rumors etc. I think I could live with the allegations vs knowledge that the Vice President of my Seminary may have been involved with people who possibly murdered somebody over their faith.

If I was to make a "fair"argument about GGWO it would be that its history is bizarre and hard to accept as being "Christian"at all. However even I believe that these things must be seen in a proper context. Where CHS was from, how he was ordained (yes he was ordained by his own church but his license to preach came from a known diploma mill listed on wikipedia).

The legal references for GGWO and TBS are so deep its hard to imagine anybody who wants some positive of the ministry to be put in this article against the backdrop of the judgments.

You can research all day and you will not find a mainstream view on GGWO that is positive. Even when the last Billy Graham crusade took place the organization wanted to distance itself from GGWO.

There are lots of good people and good missionaries from GGWO. Some positive information should be taken into consideration of their contributions including those who served in places like south America, former Soviet states, Viet Nam, and China even. But your spin and the spin I see is from a Christian perspective not in tune with either mainstream Christianity or secular views. When one does not know that their own use of words is skewed and not common they are to close. I should not be the main author on the WWCG I could contribute but I am willing to bet if I wrote the whole thing it would sound like I had just left the camp.

Imagined if I referred to WWCG as a vision of Armstrong in the article about the WWCG organization? It would be improper use of words, and very much of promotion of Armstrongism. The group went through multiple names and identities before it became the WWCG. How about saying that Charlotte was the "homebase"of PTL, or that the Camp Meeting is ___ for a Pentecostal group, or that the truth of the Holy Ghost can be understood as result of the Apostolic church as a result of the teachings of some Bishop in the African American Apostolic movement. As somebody who writes for people who don't use such terms and frankly knows that its worse than bad spelling and grammar. At least when its misspelled you can guess.

I think anybody who reads the decisions of the court, reads the articles, reads GGWO responses and even talks to both members and former members would agree, one can't argue this is just some evangelical church doing good works in the world. Its a controversial church that is still controversial. its history is important. The Pastor was interesting, and the controversies are merit for its placement here.

Enough said.

Tryster (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my relationship with the church: I used to regularly attend services four years ago. Now I only visit sporadically to catch up with some friends. This is primarily because I started attending the University of Maryland and could not commute. However, I also started developing doubts concerning the Evangelical movement because any church that had slightly different beliefs or methods was labelled "doctrinally off" or "cultish". One could say this is my agenda concerning articles like GGWO. I want people to take a second look before label any church a cult.

The people that you cite as sources are interesting as none of them are in the current leadership of GGWO. After Thomas Schaller took over, he wrote a detailed doctrine of affiliation. Therefore, the polity is much clearer than before. The term "free-will affiliation" is taken directly from this document.

Another reason that I would like you to use written documents rather than sermons for beliefs is because many of the nuances are changing. For example, Carl Stevens came out very harshly against homosexuality. However, Thomas Schaller is not nearly as harsh, but still believes that it is a sin.

I wanted to include some of the positives you mentioned above. However, I could not find any third-party sources on it and so I did not include it.

To cite the slogan of the University of Maryland: I'd rather be studying. Spinkava (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreeable then?

Can we move forward here on the work, and lay the bickering aside for now?

If we can then why not set out to write an agreeable article that is a good article?

I can help support even the positives in references. Things like the organization uses an affiliation method for membership of congregations and has a polity that is mixed can be stated for clarity.

In regards to polity. The church even by its own admission is not congregational. It does have a affiliation type association with other congregations compared to say a "denomination". Things like this can stated and be clear with references.

In regards to the indivduals I have spoken to. I have spoken to many of the leaders even recently both current and former. Although I don't think I should be discussing private conversations, especially this close in time frame to when I had them. I think that history and even public record should be used. Again good, verifiable references for the most part.

I don't see why we cannot collectively write a comprehensive article with good sources and good information, then protect the article for the sake of protecting the work.

In regards to things said in sermons. I did not try to suggest that Thomas hates Homosexuals. But he does not have a major difference of opinion than say a fundamentalist Christian. I would believe that a church who says they are fundamentalist and evangelical would actually confess that. IMHO that would be expected in Christianity. This is religious organization not a school, they have a right to hold a view even I don't agree on. The same could be said for most Southern Baptist Churches.

Can we move to writing this and closing this chapter, and also somewhat protecting this article after it has been written so that it does not get destroyed by either extreme?

Tryster (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)