Talk:Mars Hill Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

is someone insinuating that Mars Hill is a Cult? 12.197.241.166 16:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)BJLA

Contents

[edit] Largest church?

This page originally said Mars Hill was "one of the largest churches" in the Seattle area, and I changed it to say the largest, and then it was changed to say second largest with Overlake being the largest. I remember about a year ago when Mars Hill became officially larger than Overlake, which is why I made the change, so I'm wondering whether or not the Overlake change was factual. Can we have some numbers? Or, we can just leave it as it is. I'm not trying to get into church wars of who's the biggest; just trying to make an informative article. Squidge37 22:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd actually like to see numbers that say it is the largest OR second largest. I'll add a citation needed tag. Isoxyl 11:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, given that is says "one of the largest" now, I'll leave it at that. But should a change be made to revert to largest, second largest, a {{citation needed}} tag will be necessary, unless someone is providing a reference. (Other than "Matt Driscoll told me so! =) ) Isoxyl 11:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Matt Driscoll? Squidge37 17:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry - Mark. I was just being silly though. :P Isoxyl 18:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Senior pastor / teaching pastor

The page originally said "teaching pastor" and it was changed to "preaching pastor". Squidge37 15:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

With the passage of new church bylaws on 10/29/07, Mars Hill's 27+ pastors are no longer on the same level in terms of authority, as they once were. Now, Mark Driscoll and four other men handpicked by him, wield authority over the rest of the elders, who are actually "elders" in title only. Mars Hill has stated that Jesus is the senior pastor.

[edit] "three churches"

I removed an addition that said Mars Hill operates three churches in the Seattle area. This isn't entirely true because Mars Hill is one church that meets in three locations. Also, this was already mentioned earlier in the beginning of the article, so it was somewhat redundant

[edit] Cleanup needed

I added the cleanup tag (after doing a bit of cleanup myself), as the article read a little too informally and a little too much like an ad for MHC. It's a little better now, but could still use some improvement. raekwon 13:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with raekwon and have cleaned up the informal language and cut content that sounded like advertising. Staceyburz 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up, stat updates, mergers and added History & Structure.

I added History and Structure information. Additionally, I merged Acts 29 and Resurgence articles.--EZEK118 08:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

I don't get it. Mars Hill might be one of the largest churches in Seattle, but its also one of the most controversial. How is there no controversy section on this entry? Are all the editors of this entry members of Mars Hill?

abdul muhib

Agreed. I'd take a crack at writing a controversy section, but I'd be afraid it wouldn't meet NPOV criteria, as my dislike for Mars Hill is pretty potent. Although there's already quite a bit of NPOV language (not to mention a complete lack of references) in this and Mark Driscoll's article. Tdogg241 22:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

i apologize for putting my comment in the wrong place, but are you insinuating that Mars Hill is a cult?12.197.241.166 16:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)BJLA

There should definitely be a section on controversy because I know many people, myself included, who have many problems with Driscoll's doctrine. I tried making a views/controversy section but, even though it just stated their was a controversy and did not call one side right or wrong, it was deleted. Que? 01:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

IMO, there are still a lot of problems with neutrality in this article. First, it makes numerous claims without backing them up with any references (there's only one reference in the entire article, and it's the one I just added), but mostly the article uses way too much informal language. Also, as I've already noted in another comment, there really should be a Controversy section in this article (a simple Google search returns quite a few hits, some of which can be used as references). If nobody else wants to take a crack at it, I can try my hardest to come up with something that retains a neutral point of view. Tdogg241 22:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I'd say go for it. I'd be happy to take a look at your section after you're done with it and double-check it for NPOV. abdul muhib 13:33, 25 October 2007 (PST)
I agree. I live in Seattle and there's a great deal of controversy about Mark Driscoll and his teachings, particularly among Seattle self-identified Christians. His teachings tend to be very divisive and black/white -- either you wholeheartedly agree with his opinions, or have nothing to do with his followers.
I think I'm too close to this issue to help, but an outside observer should check the article for NPOV and weasel words.
Also -- this link could be helpful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult#Definition_of_.27cult.27_according_to_secular_opposition
Gary Seven 19:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or in some cases it's clear there is a consensus, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. Better yet, edit the article yourself with the improvements in place. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reads like an Ad

The organization of this article is really bad, and the tone doesn't sound like an encyclopedia entry but like an Ad or a press release. --Kraftlos (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)