Jump to content

Talk:Association of Vineyard Churches

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where did all the content go?

[edit]

Well, I can't claim to be an experienced wikipedian, but I'm pretty sure that the edits that 76.28.178.11 made today were against the rules. I'll just see if I can undo them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.200.111 (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


NPOV tag on Criticism section

[edit]

Tdkocher added this tag on April 12, but has not made any subsequent changes or added any explanation to this page regarding this tag. While I think the section could use a little cleanup, I don't see how it makes the article non-NPOV. If no one disputes the removal of this tag within a reasonable amount of time, I'll remove it. Jhortman (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one has objected to this change, so I'm removing the tag for now. If re-adding the tag at a later date, please post justification as to why in this space. Jhortman (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added the tag specifically to address the fact that, while Hanegraaf's specific points are laid out, the Vineyard's response to his book, as well as responses by individuals independent of the Vineyard, are not included and laid out in a similar fashion. Perhaps a "response to criticism" section should be added, but at this point the criticism section does not give a fair representation of the disagreement between Hanegraaf and the Vineyard. Tdkocher (talk) 02:50 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you should substantiate your criticism by either adding what you think is missing, or clarifying it here on the talk page. Its great that you have an opinion on this - hopefully it will lead to a more accurate article. Please edit further. Hyper3 (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that the size of this section is to large when the rest of the article is taken into consideration. For one thing, the title is somewhat misleading. It says "Criticism and the Toronto Blessing" which at first glance implies that there will be criticism of the Vineyard, but in reality it just talks about criticism of the Toronto Blessing which was under Wimber's umbrella but eventually the two groups parted ways. This leads to my second point: this section is not actually about current criticism of the Vineyard—its about an historical period in the life of the Vineyard movement. Ideally, I'd like to see this section converted into a subsection of the History section which deals with the rise of the Toronto Blessing within the Vineyard and the Vineyard's response to it. Ltwin (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also appreciate your willingness to help make this article better... it could certainly use it. I think it would help the article more, however, if you could actually make some more substantive edits instead of just "drive-by tagging." For example, I agree with Ltwin that the criticism section could be more effective if subsumed into the History section. Would you be willing to take a first pass at doing that? Jhortman (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that this section be rewritten to be shorter and easier to understand in relation to Vineyard. More detail criticism of the Toronto Blessing should belong in that article where readers can go if they want to know more. The inclusion of statement about John Wimbers responses should include general information about what he was responding to, not just how and why he responded. The criticism of Toronto Blessing is too off topic to take up such large amounts of this article, in my humble opinion. Was the vineyard movement only criticized for the Toronto Blessing and for no other reason? This section makes it look like this event was the only controversial thing that has happened within the movement. I will work on this article more if there is no one else who will.Flofor15 (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Calvary Chapel

[edit]

Tdkocher also added Calvary Chapel to the "See also" section. Since Calvary Chapel is referenced in the History section of the page, I see no need to reference it again. Therefore, I'm removing it. Jhortman (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lonnie Frisbee addition

[edit]

I added Lonnie Frisbee as a "see also" primarily because of his large impact on the Vineyard during its beginning stages. Please respond here first if you have an issue with this addition. Tdkocher (talk) 02:56 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Given his significant work in the early Vineyard Movement, he probably deserves more than just a "See Also" mention. If you're willing to edit the History section as we discussed above, it would be great if you could also add some content regarding Frisbee's role in the church. (There is already a small base of well-sourced content in the Lonnie Frisbee wiki article.) Jhortman (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shift to Egalitarianism after Wimbers death

[edit]

I've had a degree of involvement with the vineyard church over the years. I'm wondering if it's worth adding a section mentioning the shift in theology from Complementarianism to Egalitarianism in the Vineyard church since Wimber's death.

Note the section in John Wimber's wiki page below on his views on gender. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wimber

See reference below, this was referenced in the article above. http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-12-No-2/Women-in-Ministry-in-the-Vineyard-USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.236.14 (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as any statements regarding the Vineyard's theological positions can be referenced by independent, reliable sources, then please do. (Remember that no original research is permitted, as well.) I believe the CBMW link you posted is probably not a reliable reference because it is an organization dedicated to promoting the Egalitarianism viewpoint. Religion, like politics, is an unusual subject, though, so the CBMW link might be ok, after all... it would be good to have more discussion on that issue. It would definitely be better if you could also use a more neutral reference in addition to the CBMW link, though. -Jhortman (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Association of Vineyard Churches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Association of Vineyard Churches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category

[edit]

Hi, I have noticed that none of the pentegostal categories are present in this article. Could someone please explain to me why? 143.176.56.102 (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because the Vineyard is not a Pentecostal denomination. It is considered by most Third Wave charismatic evangelical denomination. One of the categories listed is charismatic denominations. Ltwin (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources to verify this? Other editors on the Dutch wikipedia are confinced that it is a Pentecostal denomination. They have placed three pentecostal categories on the wiki article about the Association of Vineyard Churches. 143.176.56.102 (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In English, "Pentecostalism" refers to classical Pentecostalism. Related movements that developed after the 1950s are referred to as "Charismatic". That is the framework used on Pentecostalism, Charismatic Christianity, the Charismatic Movement, and the Neocharismatic articles. Ltwin (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statements on sexuality

[edit]

I've removed a full-text quotation of primary material regarding Vineyard policies on human sexuality. Please follow the Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources guideline in the future. It would be more appropriate in an encyclopedia to write a summary statement about Vineyard theology and/or policies and then cite the sources on which the summary is based. UnsoundMethodology (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a short statement with a citation of the source. I've not kept up on my Wikipedia skills though so if there is anything I should have done differently there please let me know. Adamundefined (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content about "The Network"

[edit]

I believe that content about The Network should be deleted from this article. The events detailed have nothing to do with Vineyard Churches and are only related because The Network's founder was previously a Vineyard pastor. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a controversy within The Network because of the practices which developed within this sub-group of the Vineyard. These were in fact Vineyard churches, which later broke away. That is the nature of the controversy. CarbondatedBeverage (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CarbonatedBeverage: Yes, The Network broke off from the Vineyard churches, but did the pattern of bad behavior start before or after the split, and was it responsible for the split? Or is the bad behavior not tied to the Vineyard in any way other than that their former brethren formed a bad church after they left? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the stories published by former members the bad behavior started before they broke away. Another part of the controversy is that the Vineyard hired him with his arrest background. Perhaps this could be expanded on and linked to a dedicated page. CarbondatedBeverage (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CarbondatedBeverage and Anti-Cancel-Culture, you both need to stop with the POV agenda pushing and edit warring. I've restored the article to the status quo from before all the back and forth and POV edit warring started today. Talk it out here, come to an agreement, reach a consensus, and stop disruptive editing through reverts. Both of you are on the way to an edit warring block OR possibly the article being locked for a time with the version neither of you agree with. It's your choice, each of you. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Alaska4Me2. I did not mean to engage in edit warring. I came in earlier today to add a detail, and made an edit but didn’t cite it, which @Anti-Cancel-Culture rightly called out as not being cited, rolling back my change. They made the right call. I came back and added the citation, but, in the end, didn’t feel the detail fit the content of this page, even properly cited. I reverted my edits on my own. I do not think anything needs added to this page. I value your feedback. CarbondatedBeverage (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding and doing so kindly. Battling in Wikipedia is a bad idea all around and creates a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Easy to engage in and then harder to stop doing once everyone's dander gets up. Maybe wait a week or so, see if the edits you wanted to make are really "better" and then reevaluate. I would also encourage reaching out to the other editor to see if you can collaborate with some compromising on each side. You probably both want for the article to be better, and that's a common place which makes for a good starting platform. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Association_of_Vineyard_Churches&oldid=1212085028"