Talk:Antioch International Movement of Churches

Removed Libelous & Off Topic Section

I also removed a section that references a church staff member for a few reasons: - paragraph is mainly about the business owned by that church staff member - accusation of racism is only from one person's personal blog, and the person is an ex employee of the business. News article linked to campus newspaper doesn't reference any of the racism accusations in the section. - accusation is against one individual of questionable importance to the organization (Antioch Org > Antioch Waco > College Pastor > College Pastor's side hustle) I don't necessarily disbelieve the content but I don't know that it's relevant to the topic nor is it well sourced enough to stay up, IMO. There are a few other of these in the article but this one stood out as particularly egregious) If anyone disagrees or has other sources here's the edit. However my guess is this is probably libel and should be permanently removed. ~ Gargarlinks (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It would be incorrect to label the section as libel since a libel is a statement that is untrue. The section is comprised of true statements and even you say you don't necessarily disbelieve the content, so it's not a fair reason to use for its removal.

You view it as "off topic." Megan Peck, an employee of Waco Tours, says she experienced racism from Antioch Waco's college pastor Luke Whyte, who co-owns Waco Tours. It's relevant when an Antioch pastor is noted to be a racist, even when it's outside of a "workplace." For example if Luke Whyte made a racist tweet, (not saying he has) even if it's on his personal time (or during a second job), it's not uncommon for people to call for him to get fired from his primary workplace. People easily get fired for bad activities conducted elsewhere because society agrees their job and personal time are still responsible and interlinked anyway. Therefore, it's reasonable to note Luke, an Antioch pastor, for their racist character as support to an integration of systemic racism in Antioch Community Church. Austin613 (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, not a tabloid. A former employee at a different business accusing her former boss of being a racist does not belong in an encyclopedia. If there were indeed better or more sources, or if the incidents occurred at Antioch, it would perhaps be worth more consideration, but as is there is no serious reason for inclusion on wikipedia. ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Describing Ms. Peck's account as "tabloid" material is a quality I disagree with. It is not false, it is not sensationalist, is it not an account that seeks to profit off of wild publicity. Antioch employs Mr. Whyte, Ms. Peck has attested that Luke has exhibited racism, so I am not in consensus with your opinion. Austin613 (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not relevant enough to the topic for inclusion for the reasons previously mentioned. The content may be valid but it belongs on the blog it's already on and maybe Google Reviews, not Wikipedia. ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for Merging Jimmy Seibert and Origins Sections Together

Given that much of the founding of Antioch International intertwines with the young adulthood of its founder Seibert, I believe that it is redundant to have both a section on the founder and origins. I propose merging the two together.

This can be addressed in another post, but what is the difference between controversies and incidents? Whats the point of these being two different sections?

Wdonghan (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the necessity of it, removing the "Jimmy Seibert" subheading complicates things more. How would the "politics" of subsection Seibert fit in "Origins"? It's probably better to refocus the content. I'm not sure I agree with all your edits, you've done quite a lot of trimming, and your style of "merging" has been more drastic removal than combining/reorganizing. All of them have been reductive edits, not generative. One section about a pastor's resignation was eliminated completely. Why? Are you also deleting extra sources too?

It appears the difference between controversies and incidents are controversies suggest broader general ongoing topical issues, and incidents are more specific events in timed order. Two sections makes an easier to delineate than one massive group merging. Austin613 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the "Politics" subsection under Jimmy Seibert could be moved into Positions, beliefs, and practices, as Positions, beliefs, and practices also covers instances of Seibert individually expressing his beliefs, such as him and his wife advocating for the corporal punishment of children, even though there is nothing written about the wider Antioch Movement's stance on this issue, or how Seibert's stance influences his congregation. We could move Seibert's advocacy of Trump there.

To preface this: I have no interest in defending an evangelical and conservative Christian church or its reputation. However, I believe that much of the article, especially before I made my edits, was unwieldy and redundant, and describes incidents that aren't relevant enough to be detailed in a Wikipedia article, which is meant to provide a high level summary of an organization and it's most significant and notable attributes and incidents. This is a Wikipedia article, not a Youtube video summarizing every little drama or controversy or interesting event a group has gotten into.

Huey's resignation as a pastor and his later attempt at wiping away his history of involvement with Antioch is frankly not notable enough to be mentioned here, especially because we don't know the actual motivations behind Huey's decision and can only speculate. If we detailed every negative experience an individual former employee has had with this or any organization, this would turn the website into a Glassdoor copycat. What we should be putting is noteworthy incidents or allegations/evidence of systemic, widespread issues at Antioch.

Wdonghan (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps politics could just move to the Trump entry under controversies? Agreed on too many random little complaints that belong on Yelp not Wikipedia though I believe most are cleaned up now. ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think merging is necessary. ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Removing YWAM section

YWAM is widely liked and not particularly controversial among Christians. It's a very large org with its own controversies, but I would argue Baylor University has had as many or more controversies than YWAM and we're not listing affiliation with Baylor in the controversies section... ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Balancing article with some positives

Would be great to balance the article out a bit. Some ideas: - Antioch's focus on the poor; modest staff salaries; poverty programs like the Feast in Waco - Volunteers in disaster relief; obviously proselytization must be referenced here but a lot of time and money is spent caring for those in natural disasters Gargarlinks (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article is not a lists of pros and cons. Also, while I appreciate your contributions, your edits and remarks lead me to believe you are a member of Antioch's congregation, and I am concerned this close relationship would impair your ability to write about the organization objectively, as evidenced by you wanting "more positives" in this article.

Wdonghan (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bisexual atheist but your concern is well noted :) Wikpedia is indeed not a pros/cons list but it does require balance and all this article does is list the issues. It's a network with probably 100k~ involved or impacted individuals; they do things besides cause problems and those things should be noted here as well for balance. Not in equal measure, but as appropriate. ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Church 'planting' location controversy

User:Wdonghan There is already a section around proselytization so references to evangelism being outlawed belong in the section immediately prior. Church planting is not really a neutral phrase widely known either so not ideal to use here. Issue is not just around legality but also places where it's not illegal but still dangerous. Honestly I think this section should just be removed as I don't think it's particularly relevant to most visitors other than for a passing mention; perhaps adding a sentence or two relaying that some locations are not disclosed and why in the list of locations. ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Further, use of word 'deceptive' is inappropriate. Is in 'deceptive' for a gay person to tell people they're straight in a place that it is dangerous to be gay? Sincerely held belief endangering the members causing the org not to disclose specific cities doesn't seem to justify calling the practice 'deceptive'

Illegal and/or dangerous, sure. Gargarlinks (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of merging the proselytization and the church planting together, as they largely cover the same territory, mainly, sending missionaries where it's illegal. I disagree with you that an evangelical Christian organization hiding its locations to escape legal scrutiny is equivalent to a gay person hiding their sexuality, but that's neither here nor there.

One more note. I have changed your edit concerning the "... an effort to hide their locations in regions where running a Christian organization or church is not well received." to "where evangelism is banned." This is much more specific and accurate to the scenario we are describing here, as there are cases of countries with active and thriving minority Christian communities where evangelism is also banned. The language also comes across as trying "soften" the Church's activities, changing it from evangelism to merely "setting up Christian organizations."

Wdonghan (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)