Jump to content

Talk:Youth With A Mission: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Saksjn (talk | contribs)
1,114 edits
→dave andrews: new section
Line 843: Line 843:
The analysis of the criticism section is interesting. I think the reason that people respond so loudly to a given criticism is that they are in a part of YWAM for which that criticism may be entirely untrue and to whom that criticism makes no sense. The reality is that a criticism of one part or one campus or "base" of YWAM may be 100% valid, yet have absolutely no bearing on how another YWAM base operates and what it believes. This is the only problem I can see with many of the section's statements. Their criticisms are probably true, for the parts of YWAM that the source was exposed to and was critiquing. However, some parts of the sections just say something to this effect: "Such and Such Theological authority says Such and Such is wrong/heretical with/about YWAM." rather than specifying which YWAM campus the critic was criticizing. of course problematic in this is that many critics of the organization fail to see that YWAM in one part of the world may not be even remotely similiar to YWAM in another. This finally gets to the actual changes I've been mulling over for the article. Wikipedia should probably differentiate different YWAM campuses (i.e. specific criticism should state YWAM Denver, YWAM London etc.,) as much as the sources allow, in order to be as fair as possible to the entire YWAM community. I plan on going through and doing this where the sources allow it to be done at some point, without deleting any criticisms and without going beyond already referenced sources. YWAM bases often times have no legal connection to one another and many times it would be impossible to tell different campuses are part of the same organization without being explicity told it was a YWAM campus you were on.
The analysis of the criticism section is interesting. I think the reason that people respond so loudly to a given criticism is that they are in a part of YWAM for which that criticism may be entirely untrue and to whom that criticism makes no sense. The reality is that a criticism of one part or one campus or "base" of YWAM may be 100% valid, yet have absolutely no bearing on how another YWAM base operates and what it believes. This is the only problem I can see with many of the section's statements. Their criticisms are probably true, for the parts of YWAM that the source was exposed to and was critiquing. However, some parts of the sections just say something to this effect: "Such and Such Theological authority says Such and Such is wrong/heretical with/about YWAM." rather than specifying which YWAM campus the critic was criticizing. of course problematic in this is that many critics of the organization fail to see that YWAM in one part of the world may not be even remotely similiar to YWAM in another. This finally gets to the actual changes I've been mulling over for the article. Wikipedia should probably differentiate different YWAM campuses (i.e. specific criticism should state YWAM Denver, YWAM London etc.,) as much as the sources allow, in order to be as fair as possible to the entire YWAM community. I plan on going through and doing this where the sources allow it to be done at some point, without deleting any criticisms and without going beyond already referenced sources. YWAM bases often times have no legal connection to one another and many times it would be impossible to tell different campuses are part of the same organization without being explicity told it was a YWAM campus you were on.
On another note most YWAM bases are entirely seperate legal entities from one another. In fact some bases have been "taken" from YWAM International by the local base leadership who did not want to go in the same direction as YWAM International. Any verifiable and useable sources discussing this would probably help to clarify the diversity, independence, and coalition like nature of YWAM. I do get the feeling that this article does not really convey the level of autonomy that exists for campuses, but without good sources I won't change anything in regards to that. [[User:Musing Sojourner|Musing Sojourner]] ([[User talk:Musing Sojourner|talk]]) 19:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
On another note most YWAM bases are entirely seperate legal entities from one another. In fact some bases have been "taken" from YWAM International by the local base leadership who did not want to go in the same direction as YWAM International. Any verifiable and useable sources discussing this would probably help to clarify the diversity, independence, and coalition like nature of YWAM. I do get the feeling that this article does not really convey the level of autonomy that exists for campuses, but without good sources I won't change anything in regards to that. [[User:Musing Sojourner|Musing Sojourner]] ([[User talk:Musing Sojourner|talk]]) 19:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

== dave andrews ==

he claims he was excommunicated from ywam........ ywam does not excommunicate. can someone please clarify this for me. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] ([[User talk:Saksjn|talk]]) 21:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:07, 24 October 2009

WikiProject iconChristianity: Charismatic B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.

Expert Needed Tag

I added the expert needed tag. The article needs more elaboration on the history of YWAM. Little important points such as Mercy Ships breaking off from YWAM because it was too big and Marine Reach resulting as those in Mercy Ships wanting to remain with YWAM etc. I know of these facts but cannot relate them with authority enough. Those enlightened enough please expand. Davidkazuhiro 10:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cult researchers

I don't beleive Rick A. Ross Institute is a good reference for criticism of YWAM, as other cult researchers do not endorse Rick Ross. Apologetics Index is one example (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r24.html), and they indicate "many cult experts refuse to work with - or to refer people to - Rick Ross" though I have not checked this personally.

Apologetics Index gives a more balanced criticism of YWAM while still submitting that they even are not neutral. (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/y05.html) However, they do their best to balance their personal opinions by giving references where possible.

User:82.133.81.53 10:10, 7 November 2005

Keep the Rick Ross links & include relevant others. Cult research appears to very much a viper's nest - the level of mutual antagonism between different individuals/groups is very high. This is before you include those that appear to be apologists for various cults.
The positive thing about Rick Ross is that he appears the most open of them. None of them seem to be particularly strong academically.

Paul foord 22:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the Cult research appearing to be very week, lacking strong academic evidence, and the high mutual antagonism between Cult researchers.
For this topic however, these critics have voiced their judgement of YWAM and they should be left here for reference. We don’t need this topic becoming controversial and been pulled into the viper's nest of the Cult research. There will always be strengths and weaknesses with any organisational structure, and the delocalisation of control has its benefits and weaknesses.

Super Keo 10:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

82.143.162.72 18:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC) There should be a reference in the text of the entry, not just in the links, that YWAM has been compared to a sect or cult and has faced serious criticism. One has now been added.[reply]

82.143.162.72 13:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The term 'the delocalisation of control among the organisation' does not really put the whole story across. The extremely heavy emphasis on unquestioned authority is what courts criticism. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? Delocalisation exists in quite a number of organisations without leading to the sort of controversy YWAM is involved in.[reply]

I've taken the MGT link out because it is not referring to the same theological idea (although they do go by the same name). The MGT that is referred to in the article was popularized in the late 1960's and early 70's and is not a held belief of any denomination that I am aware of. A different MGT article needs to be written on it (because they are not the same), and i may do that one day.

Why would an important link be removed? This action is dishonest. Understanding the MGT foundation in YWAM is essential in understanding the present emphasis on spiritual warfare and the wide distribution that YWAM promotes for Dr. Gregory Boyd's books on the "Openness of God." One of the things about true Christians is that they love truth, even if it hurts! I would suggest that people who want to know the truth run a check on Goggle with something like --ywam, false teaching, moral government theology. Read and study, it won't hurt you to know the truth about YWAM. Then if you still want to join, you will go in with your eyes open and will be able to discern the error if you come across it. Here is one place that much about YWAM history is documented [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.181.174 (talk • contribs)

A personal website does not meet WP:RS for inclusion. But I did link and mention it from another source. All criticism MUST be cited for inclusion. While your free to add material make sure it is cited with WP:RS.
Other segements of the article need serious clean up as well. Arbusto 19:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not dishonost to remove the link, it would be like talking about (modern day) computers and linking to a site that discussed computers of the 1980's, the comparison is so far out there that even though they are 'similar' they are completely different! As for the controversy section, deleting it was dishonost (to whomever did it - i don't know who)!! I realize that it went out of hand (and 'preachy') but editing it would have been the honost thing to do! —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Actually, per WP:EL, it was appropriate to remove the MG link. However, the link does contain articles that would meet muster as reputable sources. My suggestion is to create a Criticisms section of this article and incorporate cited material into it. Peace. CyberAnth 02:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discipleship Training School/Merge?

yeah, merge them - two seperate article for that in unnessicary.

Yes, they should be merged.

Why no "Controversies" section?

It needs one. The previous reverted controversy section clearly read like a personal rant than material for an encyclopedia article; still, this article needs one. CyberAnth 01:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People Keep links to the YWAM websites for each nation. These are useful links but if compiled in entirety would be a list longer than the article itself. These links are also already in the "list of YWAM bases" anyways. I'm going remove the nation website links from external links and refer them to the list. Let me know what you guys think is best though for what gets to go on external links and what doesn't. Davidkazuhiro 00:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the links have been simply linkspam, probably by a base member. I removed two others. It is superfluous since List of YWAM bases already exists. CyberAnth 03:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion per AfD

Per this AfD discussion, it is recommended that Australian Relief & Mercy Services be merged into this article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:YWAMer Wikipedians

If you wish to be part of the Category:YWAMer Wikipedians - to add yourself to this category just add [[Category:YWAMer Wikipedians|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]] to the bottom of your user page. CyberAnth 21:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KKI

I am making a stub for Kings Kids International. Does any one think it should be merged with this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saksjn (talk • contribs) 05:39, March 1, 2007

We should at least have a subsection mentioning it and linking to your stub --Davidkazuhiro 09:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the past people have often added links to YWAM websites in the external links section until it is extremely long and out of proportion. Wikipedian editors have had to continuously maintain this with no consensus to go by. This was one of the reasons I created the List of YWAM bases page so that there would be a place for this list and it would not detriment from the YWAM article.

However, the List of YWAM bases is going to be deleted soon since it's job is already being done by the YWAM Directory and the list will tend to go out of date. I have included a link to the YWAM Directory in anticipation of this deletion. The question I want to raise then is this:

What limits shall we agree on for the External Links section? What qualifies to be on the list and what are we going to leave up to the YWAM website? If we can agree on this, we would have a handy policy for editors to refer to when maintaining and evaluating additions to the external links section. --Davidkazuhiro 03:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heretical Teaching

I intend to add a Heretical Doctrine sub-section stating the teachings of former YWAM teacher Gordon C. Olson. He taught:

1. God does not have an unchangeable character. God is good only because He chooses to be good. He could choose to be evil if he wanted. Source: Lead Us Not Into Deception: A Biblical Examination of the Moral Government Theology, page 11.

2. Man is not born as a slave to sin. He can choose to live a holy life, apart from Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Source: Lead Us Not Into Deception: A Biblical Examination of the Moral Government Theology, pages 25-26, 44-46

3. The death of Jesus Christ did not literally pay for the sins of all mankind. It was just a warning to show mankind that God is not happy with sin. Source: Lead Us Not Into Deception: A Biblical Examination of the Moral Government Theology, page 24

These beliefs starkly contradict the Bible and all the great Christian creeds.

The source is: The False God and Gospel of Moral Government Theology by E. Calvin Beisner, Christian Research Journal, Fall 1994 (This is a respectable source. See Christian Research Institute).

Beisner is backed-up by Dr. Alan Gomes, now a Professor at the respectable Biola University. Read Lead Us Not Into Deception: A Biblical Examination of the Moral Government Theology -found at Youth With a Mission (YWAM) and elsewhere - PDF format

---L B Brown 07:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you back this up? My family has been in YWAM for years and has never encountered this kind of teaching. We have heard just the opposite. We have encountered the authoritarianism before, and the base at which we experienced that (Elm Springs) is no longer a YWAM base. If the accusation is true please provide us with sources and names so that we can address the issue. Thanks. Saksjn 17:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Olsen was never a YWAM leader. he was an elderly gentleman who loved the Lord. He did speak in the SOE in Lausanne in 1978. His manual, "Sharing Your Faith" copyright 1976, published by Bible Research Fellowship Inc. Illinois taught neither 1 nor 2. It taught the unchangeable character of God, the utmost depravity of humanity see: W-Me-I-15 to page W-Me-I-19 and the utter necessity for a Spirit-filled life: " The Holy Spirit, as the delegated Agent of the Godhead takes the initiative to transform the whole personality of the repentant sinner through the application of the of the atoning sufferings of Christ and the gift of His energizing presence". see W-ME-X-7. The manual presented Bible studies, mostly a study of verses, themes and words, not a theological treatise. The study had been influenced by the Systematic Theology of the New England revivalist, Rev Charles Finney, of whose life Mr Olsen was an authority.Issakara 22:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you guys have not even bothered to click on the Alan Gomes file, so here it is again: Lead Us Not Into Deception: A Biblical Examination of the Moral Government Theology. Read the foreword and pages 1-3, 11, 24-26, 44-46 to start with. Moral Government Theology is completely unbiblical and is taught by Winkie Pratney, Harry Conn, Gordon C. Olson, George Otis Jr., and H. Roy Elseth. I did a DTS in Australia in 1995, and I heard a DTS leader say 'God is good because He chooses to be good', with the implication that He could choose to be evil if He wanted. This is complete garbage and a horrendous attack on the character of God. How can anyone love or worship a God Who could suddenly become evil? The biblical view is that God is immutably holy and that it is absolutely impossible for Him to do evil or ever turn into an 'Evil God'.

Dr. Gomes further claims: YWAM leaders have attempted to be evasive when confronted with the presence of these heresies within YWAM.

  • At a 1982 meeting with senior YWAM leaders they denied that Moral Government was still taught within YWAM, when Moral Government books were still being sold at YWAM Hawaii. Source: Lead Us Not Into Deception, page 3.
  • Senior YWAM leaders claim that the Moral Government heresy is not especially prominent or pervasive within YWAM. This is refuted by testimonials from former YWAMers. Moral Government was widely taught in the Schools of Evangelism in the early 1980s. Source: Lead Us Not Into Deception, page 2
  • YWAM leaders attempted to assassinate Dr. Gomes' reputation after he started speaking out about these heresies. Source: Lead Us Not Into Deception, pages 102-103

L B Brown 05:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I was quoting directly from Olsen's manual. I did read Gomes paper. I believe original sources are more authorative than an individual's paper. He never says God's character is changeable, how could he have taught on the moral attributes of the Creator if he believed these could change any time? Such a God would be arbitrary not faithful. Such a teaching does not exist in the manual. Neither does the manual teach man can live a sinless live apart from the power of the Holy Spirit and efficacy of the atonement. I quoted the direct reference for you. Nowhere in ther manual does it imply that the death of Jesus was simply to show God's displeasure about sin. There is a page about the OT sacrificial system and the substitutary nature of the atonement is upheld. I expect honesty and openness to be the rule if we are to have any discussion about this. Bias is not acceptable. 87.112.64.135 10:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, most studies of the character of God, from whatever framework, will contain a chapter of the 'moral government' of God. Being a person, His government of universe is according to His charachter, namely His revealed moral values.Issakara 10:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I do not appreciate you calling me 'dishonest' and 'biased' just because I am revealing things that YWAM would prefer to hide. The extreme hostility that YWAMers display towards any perceived criticism of YWAM is very telling. YWAM and the leaders within YWAM deserve respect, but they do not deserve to be worshipped as idols. Only God deserves that level of worship.

I am afraid that Dr. Gomes is a very authoritative source. He is a professional theologian who works at Biola University. His findings are supported by another professional theologian; Calvin Beisner. So who should I believe; two professional theologians or this unknown person, Gordon Olson? L B Brown 13:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above is based on a writing from over 20 years ago and looked at things in the 1970's and 80's. Has there been any recent studies of such teachings in YWAM - including how extensive these teaching may be. There hasn't been much quantifying based on the 1980's paper, so an up-to-date study of how things are now in YWAM which both qualifies and quantifies it's findings would be an idea. --85.211.62.199 14:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I have found a source for the curriculum used in the foundational ywam dts it is on the international dts centre and copyrighted 2002,2005. reference: http://www.ywamdtscentre.com/dts/curriculum.htm#I

I hope this helps this discussion. I am new to wiki editing, please be patient while I learn the ropes, but the I consider the material entered above as very misleading and was shocked to find it there. In Olsens's manual he never taught what he is alleged to have taught here and there is no evidence from Olsen's material cited by Gomes to support such allegations. Gomes study was from the perspective of the Limited Atonement Theory by Leon Morris. That is itself would be considered by many evangelicals as an 'unorthodox doctrine'. Evangelicals generally believe Jesus died a substitutory death for everyone ie 'for the sins of the world', not just for a pre-determined number of sins of a fore-ordained few. Issakara 14:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from YWAM authors

Absolutely shocking quotes by YWAM authors:

George Otis Jr., in The God They Never Knew:

  • if we accept the premise that Jesus literally purchased our salvation with His blood, it portrays God as vindictive and bloodthirsty (p. 109)
  • The assertion that Jesus paid for our sins has caused immeasurable damage to the Body of Christ (p. 93)
  • sin is not inherited—it comes by choice, it is created (p. 59)

Gordon Olson, in Sharing Your Faith, teaches:

  • God does not require an exact payment for sin to satisfy retributive justice...“God is love” and has completely subdued all thought of retaliation toward rebellious sinners. (p. V-4)
  • The sacrifice of Christ is not the payment of a debt (Historical Opinions, p. 2)
  • Holiness and sin are free voluntary acts of will or states of mind, and, although strongly influenced, are not caused by any internal force of nature, tendency, or instinct, nor by persuasion from external sources.
  • ...a contradiction would exist in the Bible if any statement could be found declaring our guilt for Adam’s sin. (p. IV-5)

H. Roy Elseth in his book Did God Know? asserts:

  • God is good because He chooses to be good....He(God) only is able to do right who is able at the same time to do wrong. (p. 26)

Alan Gomes says:

'This author has talked with countless individuals who have had their faith severely damaged through Moral Government teaching.'

L B Brown 19:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this input it helps me to understand what this all about. It appears to be an attempt by two individuals from a reformed christian background to evaluate some non reformed theology and find it falling short of their own perspective on the atonement and character of God. I have looked up some material for you. 1. Moral Government Theology has already got its own WIKI page so an internal reference would inform people what this about and facilitate further research. 2. Complete documents of Finney's theology are to be found on the Calvin College website.www.ccel.org Moral government theology comes within their editorial remit of 'orthodox christian doctrine', as I believe it would in any overview of mainstream christian doctrines. Afterall, Finney's ministry produced much fruit. http://www.ccel.org/about/mission.html which says their values are: 1. Selectivity—Writings included in the library are considered valuable in some way to build up the church. In addition to Christian classics, there may be secondary literature on the classics and other works valuable for the mission.

2. Orthodoxy—Writings in the library for the most part represent orthodox Christianity as understood by mainstream Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christians, with greater emphases on Reformed and Protestant writings.

3. Ecumenicity—The CCEL strives to expose readers to a variety of Christian perspectives.

3. The assertion that God's moral character comes from His choices and not from His metaphysic is a classical Christian and biblical view that distinguishes most christian theology from Islam. The Bible does not teach 'might is right', but that an all powerful God willing restricts His activity only to what is according to His perfect knowledge of what is good and loving, hence He can say of Himself that 'He keeps covenant' etc.

There are 'countless individuals who have had their faith damaged by'....is a non issue. A person's faith is not dependent upon a certain theory of what God does or does not know, but upon the Person of Christ, His death and Resurrection. There are many atheists too who claim to be offended or 'damaged by reformation theology'. That did not mean that therefore reformed theologians were relegated by the Church to the category 'heresy' (except by the orthodox church) even though most Christian traditions would not agree with some of their assertions, in particular a penal theory of the atonement, predestination of individuals to salvation or condemnation and an aristotelian classical worldview with which they framed their understanding of God. There has always been much room for diversity in the Body of Christ and Christian Church tradition over the centuries. One does not have to believe in a human theory of atonement in order to believe Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.

4. A discussion of the intellectual, biblical and pastoral consequences of the assertion of penal atonement theory that the Father and the Son had different attitudes towards sinners can be found at www.perichoresis.org

Please justify your assertion that the orthodox doctrines of Finney and his successors are 'heretical' by more that a reference to a source that comes from a minority theological stream of reformed thinking. Of relevance here is the WIKI entry on Limited Atonement Theory where this itself is referred to as 'controversial', yet Leon Morris, a Limited Atonement Theory exponent, is freely referred to in Gome's paper as an authority on christian doctrine. Neither he, nor Pink, would be regarded in this way by mainstream christian theology.

I hope these references are helpful.Issakara 22:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having read the entire discussion L B Brown seems like he has an axe to grind against YWAM. Wikipedia should not be used to issue warnings about heretical groups it should be neutral and impartial. There should be no references to "this isn't bibical". If there are controveries state them in a matter of fact way, not in some kind of crusade against ywam... so you had a bad experience big deal... you want to discuss it then get counselling.

Many of those quotes are taken out of context, individual quotes cannot show the overall message of a book or teaching. (Saksjn) (I wasn't logged in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.112.134.34 (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The critics of YWAM are the honest ones!

I do not understand why the doctrine, practice and history of YWAM would be in dispute. There is tons of documentation to prove that these things are true. Believe me, people like Dr. Alan Gomes and Dr. Cal Beisner are the best when it comes to saying only what they know can be proven with documentation.

On the other hand, what really should be questioned are statements like: "In 1992 alone, the 90 YWAMers and 4,000 refugee staff clothed 53,500 people, immunized 11,000 children per month, trained 109 agricultural students, distributed 44,000 letters monthly, and gave 26 pastors a year's Bible training." I preached a sermon in a small village in Kalimantan and "somewhere around 50 people" came to Christ, but we didn't count. How does one count to 53,500 when working over a long period of time with "90 YWAMers (youth!) and 4,000 refugee staff"? Such claims are impossible to document. Are we supposed to simply put our faith in this organization that has a history of lies, cover-ups and exaggerations? I read in a book about a crusade that I had attended when I was in YWAM and it was touted as a great success with many conversions! Hogwash! It was nothing of the kind. It was a small city in Arizona and George Otis Jr (of Moral Government Theology fame) and John Dawson were our leaders. They had radio broadcasts teaching Moral Government Theology! Sometimes I think that these guys are nothing less than sociopaths with consciences which are seared with a hot iron. They do not know how to feel guilt for their sins and deceptions any more than wild donkeys mating in the forest. (76.175.16.135 22:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)) Rev. Greg Robertson


Please read the entry I put up. What is in dispute is the right of one group of Christians to call others 'heretics', when the matters under discussion, ie reformed theology and Finney's theology, both fall under the remit of 'orthodox doctrines'. As far as YWAM is concerned, I am sure multiple opinions can be found within in the group as it is quite ecumenical. I have found no official paper anywhere nor heard of any practice that deviates from orthodoxy in this regard. As far as pastoral matters, I am sure every large group has many of them. The important thing is they are addressed by competent leadership.

Please respond to my postings .Issakara 12:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Issakara, we are no longer talking about 'orthodox doctrines'. Further up this page, I have shown YWAM authors Olson and Otis denying that Jesus Christ shed His blood to take away our sins. In light of this, your questions about Gomes fade into irrelevance. Note also that YWAM's 'Moral Government Theology' was invented by Olson and is not the same as the teachings of Finney. --L B Brown 14:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I was absolutely appalled that you do not care about the people who have been damaged by these 'teachings'!

I did not say that, I said it was not relevant to an allegation of heresy Issakara 15:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olsen never denied the teaching that 'Jesus Christ shed His blood to take away our sins'. It is wrong to suggest he did, any reading of his material will prove otherwise. As for Otis, I know nothing about him and cannot comment.Issakara 15:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


'God does not require an exact payment for sin to satisfy retributive justice...' (Gordon Olson, Sharing Your Faith, p. V-4)
'The sacrifice of Christ is not the payment of a debt' (Gordon Olson, Sharing Your Faith, Historical Opinions, p. 2)
--L B Brown 15:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are statements referring to specific penal theory of the atonement, there is no denial here that the atonement took place or that the Christ was not a sacrifice for sin, indeed the biblical language is entirely upheld. He held Christ was fulfilling every element of the OT sacricial system. I have already cited the references. In this Olsen is an exponent of Finney.Issakara 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The atonement of Christ rendered satisfaction to public justice (a demonstration before all that rebellion against authority will be punished), as distinguished from retributive or vindictive justice.

In other words, 'Jesus did not die for our sins'.

...the Atonement is not required by the subjective nature or vindictive justice of God before mercy is extended.

In other words, 'we don't need to accept Jesus in order to go to heaven'.

--L B Brown 16:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I don't understand what a 'penal theory of atonement' is. Could you use simple words please :)

A penal theory is one that demands 'retributive or vindictive justice', ie God punishes individual sins demanding an exact payment for the individual offences.

Olsen speaks of an atonement as satisfaction to public justice, namely that 'rebellion against authority will be punished.' Sin here is defined as the collective rebellion of mankind against God's authority throughout the ages ever since the original sin of Adam, which has individually been ratified by each and every human being ever since, whether they lived before or after Moses. (Romans 5:13-14). God punishes this sinfulness and Jesus suffers on account of these sins. His suffering is a substituted for the penality of our collective sin 'the lamb (sacrificial) of God who takes away the sins of the whole world'. John 1: 29

It does not follow 'we don't need to accept Jesus to go to heaven'. This is a non-Christian belief. here Olson is saying the atonement is not required by an atrribute of God's character that requires to demand an 'eye for an eye' before extending mercy. mercy is extended but upon a different premise. Olson was thoroughly Christian, he taught that without repentance and faith in Christ no-one could be saved. What he disagreed with was the Limited Atonement Theory and a penal view of the atonement. The language of the latter is always couched in terms of 'retributive or vindictive justice'. Hope this helps.Issakara 18:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I still cannot understand what you are trying to say, and I have studied mathematical logic. Let's look at Olson's statement:

'The atonement of Christ rendered satisfaction to public justice (a demonstration before all that rebellion against authority will be punished), as distinguished from retributive or vindictive justice.'

I interpret this to mean:

'The atonement of Christ was merely a demonstration that God does not like sin. My individual sins (all sins I have committed and ever will commit) were not imputed to Christ when He died on the cross. Christ did not die in order to satisfy God's wrath against all the sins I have committed and ever will commit.'

This is not biblical. Now consider his statement:

'Holiness and sin are free voluntary acts of will or states of mind, and, although strongly influenced, are not caused by any internal force of nature, tendency, or instinct, nor by persuasion from external sources.'

I interpret this as:

'Man does not have an inherent sinful nature.'

which is also clearly unbiblical. I believe that most people would interpret these two statements in exactly the same way.
--L B Brown 19:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. All that rebellion against authority will be punished: is a clear statement that sin will be punished. What Olsen is saying is that the death of Christ satisfied public justice. The punishment for sin was against the corporate activities of man since the time of Adam. This is certainly not a mere demonstration that 'God did not like sin'. Olsen has an entire page in the manual about the way the Christ fulfilled the requirements of the OT sacrificial system and held that His death could not be understood without apprehending the meaning of the sacrifices instituted by Divine Revelation. Olsen held that the Christ died for the sins of the world., this is actually stated in the quote you used, 'Christ rendered satisfaction to public justice'. If your individual sins are included in the 'sins of the world', then it is not in dispute that Olsen would have said that His sacrifice was for you also..

2. Holiness and sin are free voluntary acts of will or states of mind:- I think what is being referred to is 'venial sin' as opposed to 'original' or 'mortal' sin. Venial sin is generally understood to be deliberate conscious acts of disobedience against God. No causative agent which could render mankind with an excuse before God is inferred here. This is Gordon's point. Original sin refers to all corporate consequences of Adam's sin, which was unlike ours in that he acted out of innocence. Romans 5:14. We are not culpable for these conditions within which we find ourselves. Olsen makes this clear also. He calls it the depraved sinful nature. What he asserts is that not only does man find himself in this depraved state, but he voluntarily and deliberately contributes to the maintenance and development of this depravity all of the time. Romans1:18 "men who keep (actively) the truth imprisoned in their wickedness". Mortal sin is unforgivable. I have not found any reference to this in his manual. His manual does not claim to be an entire or even definitive description of all Christian thinking.

There are various theories of sin, original sin, atonement and the like in Christian tradition. Finney's thinking is only one viewpoint upon many. Such diversity is characteristic of the Church and one theory should not be taught to the exclusion of others. I cannot see anything in Olsen or Finney which would depart from orthodoxy. There are no grounds to hold that anyone with such views are 'heretics'.

Each systematic view of revelation is likely to create its own language as it generates it own frame of reference and analysis. This is unavoidable. It is a fruit of fallenness! Confusion arises when concepts inherent in one system are used to interpret the categories of another, especially when similar language is used described different things.

It is my view that all views, reformation theologies, MGT or whatever, all fall short of Biblical teaching and should not be used as a definitive framework within which to understand Scripture. With respect to ideas of 'sin', Scripture teaches that iniquity is a 'mystery'...mysteries are not subject to systematic formulations.

This discussion appears to about the atonement and sin rather than YWAM.

It is my understanding is that YWAM does not pronounce on particular theories of the atonement or other doctrines. As a Christian organisation of global scope, this is commendable. It should only hold on to what is essential to the Christian Faith and looking at its official material that is what I find to be the case.

P.S. I was surprised to find one of the individuals you referred to was upset that certain books were 'available within the organisation' ! Does this Christian leader expect Christian organisations to censor what people read? I have never heard of YWAM leaders censoring what people might wish to read or discuss amongst themselves. Indeed, as an international organisation specialising in short term work and launching new projects in needy parts of the world all the time such censureship would be impossible.Issakara 23:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Issakara, I find your explanations to be garbled, long-winded, unclear and extremely unconvincing:)
I propose to remove my personal interpretations of Gomes' document from the 'unorthodox doctrines' section. I will then add the quotes from Gomes, Olson, Otis, etc. This way, people can make up their own minds...
--L B Brown 04:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In brief, 1.You said Olsen did not teach Jesus died for the sins of the world, this is incorrect. I have earlier referred to original sources on this. 2 You said he did not teach the depravity of mankind, when he did. 3. This discussion is about Olsen and MGT, not about YWAM. What is unclear or garbled?Issakara 10:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unorthodox Doctrines

About the section "Unorthodox Doctrines": this is clearly not the doctrine that is taught in YWAM. In the YWAM statement of faith, they say "all people have sinned and come short of God's glory" which contradicts the second point of this section (that Mankind is not inherently sinful). Martious 19:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well, YWAM says that it teaches biblical doctrines, but these theologians are saying that YWAM has also taught unbiblical doctrines. If I am an employer and someone comes to me to ask for a job, I will ask for the phone numbers of their referees. I won't just accept what they say about themselves; I want to know what other people say about them. It is the same situation here.

Are you able to give a satisfactory explanation for these quotes from YWAM teachers and authors:

George Otis Jr., in The God They Never Knew:

  • 'if we accept the premise that Jesus literally purchased our salvation with His blood, it portrays God as vindictive and bloodthirsty (p. 109)'
  • 'The assertion that Jesus paid for our sins has caused immeasurable damage to the Body of Christ (p. 93)'
  • 'sin is not inherited—it comes by choice, it is created (p. 59)' (denying the inherent sinful nature of man)


H. Roy Elseth in his book Did God Know?:

  • 'God is good because He chooses to be good....He(God) only is able to do right who is able at the same time to do wrong. (p. 26)' (denying the immutable holiness of God)


Gordon Olson, in Sharing Your Faith:

  • 'God does not require an exact payment for sin to satisfy retributive justice...“God is love” and has completely subdued all thought of retaliation toward rebellious sinners. (p. V-4)' (denying that Christ was sacrificed to satisfy God's wrath against sin)
  • 'The sacrifice of Christ is not the payment of a debt' (Historical Opinions, p. 2)
  • 'Holiness and sin are free voluntary acts of will or states of mind, and, although strongly influenced, are not caused by any internal force of nature, tendency, or instinct, nor by persuasion from external sources.' (another denial of the inherent sinful nature of man)

--L B Brown 02:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The 'unorthodox doctrines' section contains paraphrases that are mine and not direct quotes from Gomes. I have removed two of the three claims while they are under dispute. Evangelical theologian Calvin Beisner states:

'

Since the 1960s, a new heretical theology has been infiltrating evangelical circles. Not officially embraced by any well-known denomination or parachurch organization, the system has nevertheless made serious inroads into at least one large and well-known missions organization...

'The system's major proponents dub it moral government theology. But today's moral government theology is a far cry from what went by that name two centuries ago.... Contemporary moral government theology is principally the brainchild of the late Gordon C. Olson....

Moral government theology (hereafter MGT) first began to spread rapidly when Olson and Conn became regular speakers for Youth With A Mission (YWAM), which has since become one of the larger youth missionary organizations in the world. Contrary to YWAM's repeated denials that MGT was an important part of its teaching, it was in YWAM training that tens of thousands of students from the late 1970s through the 1980s, and some even into the 1990s, learned MGT (although today some YWAM leaders speak against MGT).'

Because Olson's version of MGT is linked heavily to YWAM, is different to historical MGT, and is considered heretical by some evangelical theologians (Gomes and Beisner), I oppose the merger of Olson's MGT with the historical MGT article.
--L B Brown 05:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't say there are no wrong doctrines teached by some people in YWAM, I say even though there are some, it's not in the general doctrine (guide-line) of YWAM in general. So don't put it as it was a generality but this is a one time, some teacher thing. And except these one or two exceptions all the other teachers teach the doctrine stated by YWAM. And it is what is important: WHAT IS TEACHED THE MOST FREQUENTLY not the exception, although you can mention it. Martious 15:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy Section Disproportunate

I have edited the controversy section (09:58, 5 September 2007 195.162.201.57 - forgot to log in) because it is too large in comparison to the size of the article. There are several points to my reasoning:

  • The dispute on MGT is 17 years old and the points made refer to that period.
  • The dispute on Authoritarianism refers to very specific cases in the past. The proper place for resolving such disputes in not in an Encyclopedia! Detailing just two case histories should not persuade the reader. There are plenty of websites out there with people discussing their stories. The reader should be directed to sources.
  • The section is too long: 722 words out of 2768. Compare this to Jehovah's witness Article's controversy section: 580 of 12281 words. (There is a Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses article with more).
  • The Moral Government Theology article has no link to YWAM but does to Methodism yet Methodism has no criticism section. This draws me to the conclusion that the controversy section admits extreme bias as it stands at the moment.
  • There is currently no rebuttal part to the controversy section.

Now, I am a YWAMer and so I must withdraw from this discussion soon as I am clearly biased. However, the WP aims for a NPV and this section is clearly in breach of this due to its disproportionate size and lack of balance.

The WP article on YWAM is not the place to carry on disputes against YWAM that currently continue in certain places on the internet. The Article already has links to those critical sites.

The purpose of the article is to be an Encyclopedia entry. Lets get back to that.

--Kev-the-Hasty 10:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kev, the Rick Ross site has updates of criticism and warning as recent as this year. I'm taking an interest in this article as a former member of another organization that has been accused of authoritarianism, fostered dependency, elitist attitude toward attitude other churches, treating council as commandment, unwillingness to listen to criticism, treating dating as a sin, discouragement of education, and discouragement of outside counseling. Quite a laundry list there, I know. An appropriate encyclopedia article will incorporate criticism from authorities in related fields. The typical tactic by organizations which grew out of the Jesus Movement and employed a sheperding strategy for growth and development is to frame profound instances of error as isolated and uncommon. In refutation, those who know to look for these greivous aberrations find their presence in these organizations to be as predictable as clockwork. I will be adding generously to this section and reverting without regard to "proportion"-- the proportion of affirming and critical RS, extant and verifiable, will be our guide now. I encourage you to research and include affirming sources with can be included under current wikipedia guidelines. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Research will show (Read Alan Gomes book or look up Christian Research Journal for articles) that the Methodist MGT is different from the MGT that is being discussed here. YWAM MGT includes teaching such as denial of original sin, God's limited knowledge and the denial of Christ's death as a propitiation for our sins (all of which the Methodist's MGT still affirms). It's all these points combined that makes up the NEW MGT.

editing shooting story

The facts about grenades needs a citation asap, or it will be removed. The lack of citation for "former YWAM missionary" is the reason that statement is deleted. 66.8.162.9 (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Information

I am a leader within YWAM and I have added additional sections regarding Structure, Doctrines and Practices, Foundational Values and Reception among the Evangelical community. I have met the fundamental criteria set forth by this portal in that my entries contain no original research, all informational is verifiable, and I have presented a neutral point of view. I welcome any comments or critiques on my additions. Davidandrewclark (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the new additions violate Wikipedia policy WP:SELFPUB, among others. I'm removing to put on talk page so these can be corrected. With the new endorsements section, that's fine, a parachurch can have an endorsements section, but there are a number of problems with it. Mainly, a self published source may not make claims about 3rd parties. Also, the notability of a source can easily be established with a wikilink. Bolding is not necessary, and titles are restricted. Wikipedia is no respecter of men. =) 72.19.140.173 (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The self publication policy refers particularly to individuals who are citing their own works as source materials. This does not preclude the citation of self-descriptive materials published by a subject (in this case YWAM), so long as the NPV is maintained.63.225.147.230 (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements

YWAM is endorsed by several Evangelical leaders.

This corrects the problems of wikification and rhetoric but WP:SELFPUB is still not satisfied. References from reliable third parties must be given. 72.19.140.173 (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quick reference. These Global Pastors network partners are working with YWAM. Does that satisfy the self-pub rule? http://www.gpn.tv/GPNtv.jhtmlKeiko234 (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Here's another one. Table 71 http://www.table71.org/T71-Resources.asp[reply]

A link isn't an explicit endorsement, although I can imagine Global Pastors Network endorsing YWAM, especially based on that. GPN, unlike other sources listed, is actually notable. I should know, I wrote their article and got the DYK nom. Is Table 71 in any way notable? And how many of these (potential) sources are members of GPN? If it's really GPN that endorses YWAM, then the rest is just listcruft. The perception previously expressed from neutral and contrary positions is that GPN will gladly endorse anyone buying their materials. But I will be glad to concede in namespace that GPN endorses YWAM and not one bad word about the connection. It does support the notion that theological critics of YWAM are correct in their assessment of "dominionism". But I would never point that out in namespace. That would be original research. ClaudeReigns (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be very beneficial if each one of these organizations got researched for their connection and endorsement of YWAM. ClaudeReigns are you up for the challenge? Can you prove any of these have not endorsed YWAM? Instead of adding to the knowledge you are taking it away. If you want to increase knowledge, then why is this happening? Keiko234 (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's official WP policy as I've shown that all information must be well sourced. The responsibility of proving the worth, reliability, and verifiability of all content lies with the editors including such information. In short, I don't have to prove they have endorsed YWAM, and can delete the endorsements if they are not verified through a third-party, which does include the endorsers themselves. The heart of the matter: I don't "know" what's being put forth unless it's properly sourced. It doesn't count as "knowledge" unless you source it properly. Also, I didn't 'disappear' the content, I just threw it on the talk page assuming that someone would get around to sourcing it. Good luck with that. Now that you're familiar with WP:SELFPUB you might be finding some other content here joining it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akha Heritage Foundation

A non-profit human rights foundation dedicated to the protection of ethnic Ahkas currently maintains that YWAM is involved in financial exploitation of young Akha girls in Thailand and that the Salem, Oregon branch of the organization has attempted to conceal their involvement with the mission work there. [1][2][3]

Such allegations may be considered in the light of YWAM's publicly available Statement of Faith[4] and since 2002 their clearly defined grievance and reconciliation procedure.[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidandrewclark (talk • contribs) 16:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Additional input is needed on this issue (beyond ClaudeReigns). I assert that these allegations from the AHF have no material bearing on an encyclopedic description of YWAM. These issues involve 2 operating locations out of 1,100 around the world. This issue has extremely little bearing on the character of the organization as a whole. The allegations of the AHF are at present unproven and unsubstatiated. If these issues are ever resolved--then perhaps--maybe--they may be worth mentioning. Above all else--several WP policies are violated: 1) WP is not a discussion forum WP:FORUM. 2) WP is not a site for posting allegations WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND and 3) The AHF is an advocacy cause WP:SOAPS. Davidandrewclark (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#ADVOCATE clearly says "Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view." I am not a member of AHF and am not using wikipedia to advocate a group I'm personally involved with. User:Davidandrewclark however seems to be a single purpose account to defend YWAM content.
WP:BATTLE clearly falls under a community (not content) guidleline. Is there a particular piece of my community interaction you find objectionable enough to censor this content over?
Since most of the information about the Akha article itself derives from AHF sources, it would seem that this source is the most authoritative about the history and condition of the Akha people. The source itself documents conditions at Eden House with photographs. It would seem to be reliable and verifiable. Am I missing something? And why is it that the rebuttal from YWAMers is now removed? Granted that it seems a little out of place and weak now that the controversies presented are more than just theological... but still... what is the reasoning behind removing that content as well? You never explained that. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just added a third-party source to support the notability of this dispute. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The specific allegations being made are here: http://www.akha.org/upload/flyers/akhaalert10ywam.pdf

But I chose not to use words like "sick" and "genocide" because that wouldn't be NPoV. I simply used the most calm euphemisms as they appeared on the AHF website and ATTRIBUTED them to AHF, thus maintaining NPoV. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on David Clark, [2] I discovered that he's seriously violating WP:COI by editing his organization's article. I'll reintroduce the content and will continue to revert all edits under this SPA. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI states,"Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles. However, an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias." WP issues cautions with regard to COI, and these I have strived to heed.Davidandrewclark (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re the claim that I am "single purpose account with the intent to defend YWAM"-- I don't think that's a fair assessment. I have acted in good faith,according to WP policies. And I have made no effort to conceal my identity. My concern for the YWAM article at present is that it gives undo weight WP:UNDUE to minority perspectives toward YWAM. The organization is highly regarded among Evangelical leaders,which the above "Endorsement" section demonstrates. I can accept that the controversies around the organization should be given mention--but in proportion.63.225.147.230 (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can definitely note your concerns about WP:UNDUE. They mirror some of my own from the other perspective. Comments on critical sources have been limited to a single sentence to outline the concerns of the individual source except where a considerable effort is given in the source to qualify an overall judgment (as in the Ross evaluation) or multiple concerns are raised within a single source. Whereas, it seems extensive prose lifted directly from the organizations website comprises the rest of the article. Since it seems that these critical sources come from extensive journalistic sources from political and religious perpectives, the most heavily cited "cult expert" from all journalistic sources, an advocacy group, all of which are third parties, and upcoming sources from so many theological perspectives (Evangelicals and other Protestant perspectives, many of whom are very concerned about the absence of sola fide doctrine, for example.) They are extensive enough I've yet to condense it all, so it remains to be seen whose opinion is indeed the minority at all. Sofar, all we have is the word of the organization, which I continue to doubt because of a pervasive lack of third-party sourcing. Making an effort to properly source and add third-party content to the affirmative will help with the balance of the article. If you are here in good faith, then welcome. I hope we will learn a lot from each other. There was one name that I deleted recently that sounded familiar, a Mr. Nizza. If he, for example is notable enough to have his own article, we could return his name to the list of notable people. ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of endorsements part II

For now, this list is to keep track of third-party articles about YWAM. Part of the purpose will be to list where the above speakers are working side by side with YWAM.

I am not an employee of Youth with a Mission, I am a volunteer. These are easily found articles. Many of the names mentioned above are partners with YWAM, but to find sources except for witnesses is going to be hard. Since we have 16,000 full time staff, there will be some who are dissatisfied and or hurt. They are out there and on behalf of all staff, we ask their forgiveness and want to improve so no one experiences that kind of pain. With 500,000 students around the world, there's a wide variety of experiences, media reports tend to favor the few negative ones rather than the majority of satisfied ones. Bsheepwiki (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job with sources. I'm not sure that being a volunteer authorizes you to speak "on behalf of all staff", and this probably isn't a good forum for identificational repentance in action. The POV of most ex-comms and walkaways, despite the picture you paint, does not typify toward glaring media attention. I find it senseless to hypothesize about the representativity of media reports. Journalism is our tool to recall what has happened in the modern age and all people are potentially journalists. In the end you will find that much has been said in favor of YWAM and that if you care enough to include it, the article will represent those who have positive experiences with the organization, while still providing enough caveat and linkage so that no one who's visited here can say "Why didn't I know that about YWAM?" Once again, I find it encouraging that you are taking part and providing appropriate sources for claims within the article. I'll be sure to take a look at Christian Post. Welcome. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup... the source says fifty thousand, not five hundred thousand. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ASSIST News source conflicts with the numbers Fox News applies to yearly short term missionaries. The difference between 20,000 and 50,000 is significant enough to call into question the reliability of Aid to Special Saints in Strategic Times. Note that this source is not ASSIST based out of Vermont. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cult?

Just a question, would a cult be allowed to minister in churches of every major denomination on a regular basis?The base my family works at in Orlando is located in a church and we minister 1-3 times a week to churches of every major denomination in the area. Would a cult be allowed this much influence in the modern American and non-American church? Would churches finanicially support a cult like they do YWAM? I think not. Saksjn (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is for discussion of improvements to the article. I take it you disagree with the sources. Since Fox News had to ask if YWAM is a cult, and brought in the most journalistically recognized "cult expert" to make an assessment, let's assume there are some people who consider it to be so... however they define the term. This in itself is notable. It's true this article needs work--work finding sources verifying the claims made by the primary source which comprises most of the article.
I'm sorry to see that a vandal has come by and deleted numerous verifiable sources. This vandalism has been restored. I was hoping that improper use of primary sources would be backed up by third-party sources by now. Unfortunately, those sources not conforming to policy WP:SELFPUB will have to be supported or deleted in the next three days. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rant?

the Controversy section should be a recognition that some consider YWAM controversial, not a rant against the organization. Saksjn (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely possible to represent notable controversies about an organization. Do you believe that the namespace language which describes these sources is indicative of a rant? I think I've been extremely careful to attribute criticisms to their sources, and demonstrate their notability through wikilinking. Or by characterizing the controversy section as a "rant", do you hope to vanish the criticism as has been done on this page in the past? I know your family works at a base in Orlando, perhaps you might be a little close to this topic. I am, however, trying to AGF. Without you being more specific, I'm assuming that since you are a young person close to the organization you therefore are simply feeling overwhelmed by the scope of critical information to which you have never been exposed, causing a kind of cognitive dissonance.
Don't worry, I don't think a wikipedia editor can be blocked 'for health reasons'. The Christian News (Lutheran News, Inc.) calls your organization "anti-intellectual",[3] as my past forty days here tend to bear out: I have patiently waited for a YWAMer to actually support their content (pasted from their websites) with third-party sources; but now I am hoping you can bring more to the talk page than rhetoric and more to the article than primary sources. Do us the honor of being specific. It will no doubt increase your esteem as an editor. Thank you and welcome. ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to do a better job on sourcing info. I'm super busy right now so its difficult to find time. Once I have time I'll look for articles suppporting YWAM and disagreeing with some of the controversy. Thanks for the note and I'll do my best to help out. Saksjn (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the manuel of style discourage controversy sections becasue they are not encyclopedic? Saksjn (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:MOS doesn't mention controversy or criticism. There is an essay discourages them as implying a POV and recommends they be merged as much as possible. Thus the merge. This essay (not policy or guideline) on criticism is WP:Criticism. Though editors are not obliged to follow it, I note it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

UN Partnership

  • In the 1980's, YWAM's refugee ministry in Thailand began partnering with the UN to provide effective relief for countless stranded refugees along Thailand's porous border. In 1992 alone, the 90 YWAMers and 4,000 refugee staff clothed 53,500 people, immunized 11,000 children per month, trained 109 agricultural students, distributed 44,000 letters monthly, and gave 26 pastors a year's Bible training.[6][dubious – discuss]

The primary assertion that YWAM and UN 'partnered' in the 80's at Thai refugee camps is not established in any third party source I can find, and none of the statistics, either. Will remove to talk page on Friday if not supported with a third party. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to talk page to await support. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rios Montt part one

Please provide verification that Clifford Krause actually states that Rios Montt "eradicated many human rights abuses" and that this is in fact reliable. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified from source. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bring up what seems like a fun little fact. But what does the Rios Montt paragraph have to do with Youth With A Mission? It refers solely to an individual who happens to be the organizations founder. I suggest this little trivia nugget be deleted for lack of relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delhiwallah (talk • contribs) 12:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an extended conversation below. It has its own section. ClaudeReigns (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Criticism

Affirming sources are definitely welcome! It's assumed however that the merging of critical sources with the main body of the article helps to create a more neutral point of view, which may help with the appearance of a "rant." Both fringe critical and primary sources note a connection to the Olympic Games, so I will be working at sourcing these outreaches, and exploring new leads about Gordon Watson (anti-abortionist), while extending the invitation to merge the critical sources with the main article body. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strike-through text== No time to edit ==

Since there's plenty of references to old controversies, here's links to help balance the article some more.


what's happening:


I still don't have the time to integrate this into the article. But separating the controversity and merging it into the whole article doesn't seem to follow the pattern in other wiki posts. So i disagree with it.

Keiko234 (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly explained in Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_structure. Good job on sources. I can be sure to read them, summarize them, and cite them when this current cleanup is complete. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New set of sources

24.165.44.163 (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rios Montt

Ever consider that someone like Loren Cunnigham has met people of all kinds and may not know their heart? All the associations you've brought up about Guatemala isn't linked that closely with YWAM but to brief meetings and a misjudgment of Rios Montt's character? Haven't you've given it more importance that is warranted here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.44.163 (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the notice of journalists, namely Frederick Clarkson and Sara Diamond, that have given it weight. The Statement of Faith and the work of Mercy Ministries have more weight here. Soon Youth With A Mission's Olympic outreaches will have more weight than all of these, simply because this is what YWAM is noted for in reliable third-party publications. A bad bet on a dictator is sure to attract attention. History tends to note where our leaders spend their moral capital. There are other examples of embarrassing choices within the organization which have been reliably reported and do not yet appear here. I however, shall forebear while awaiting more reports of positive experiences and positive impact. The Olympic outreach section will be augmented, or premiere in an article by itself, within a week. What is preferred? ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This Week In Blogging the Religious Right: The Path to 9/11 Edition". Retrieved 2007-12-22. Ríos Montt's ascension to power [by coup in 1982] was celebrated by thge U.S. Christian Right as a sign of divine intervention in Central America.... In May, 1982, [Pat] Robertson told the New York Times that his Christian Broadcasting Network would send missionaries and more than a billion dollars in aid to help Rios Montt rule the country. While Robertson's offer never came to fruition, it enabled Rios Montt to convince the U.S. Congress that he would not seek massive sums of U.S. aid. Instead, he would rely on "private aid from U.S. evangelicals. Toward that end, Rios Montt's aide... came to the United States for a meeting with... [Reagan consigliore] Edwin Meese, Interior Secretary James Watt... and Christian Right leaders Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Loren Cunningham (head of Youth With a Mission). </ref>[7][8] Under Ríos Montt, an Evangelical Christian, death-squad killing around Guatemala City was virtually ended, but the Army herded thousands of Indians into reeducation camps and subjected to psychological warfare while tens of thousands of Indians were slaughtered.[9] Spain currently seeks Ríos Montt's extradition on war crimes charges stemming from the Mayan genocide during his presidency.[10][11][12][13][14]

This content is very out of place here. How does this content prove YWAM is connected to genocide? It might be included you also show that the bulk of the money YWAM spends is to provide for widows, children, building homes, fighting to free slaves. It's not neutral otherwise. There are numerous journalist articles pointing to how we spend this money on the causes of injustice, far different from the light portrayed in Keiko234 (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go back and take a look at the edit and the source [4] Now tell me--how this horrid misattribution by User:Davidandrewclark should have been answered? Perhaps I should have deleted it altogether. The line of apologetics initiated there (that Rios Montt was pretty much a good guy) was silly to pursue, worse still to present a scholarly source as supporting it. Which it doesn't. Rios Montt, according to even DAC's source, killed 70,000 Mayans and put just about as many in concentration camps to make them the kind of Christians he wanted them to be. Talk about Discipleship Training.
Yours is a much better tack and deserves an answer. Cunningham didn't come to the table as a husband or a pastor. The men at the table were there as representatives of sizably wealthy religious interests there to help effect a declared political revolution. This isn't original research. This is what Sara Diamond's book Spiritual Warfare is about. Youth With A Mission is mentioned intentionally, and this is not the only mention of YWAM within its pages. There's more concerning galoshes in that book which I anticipate I'll add before all is said and done.
Speaking of CONTENT, I don't believe anyone's yet mentioned a preference for the material I'm about to add. Should an exhaustive summary of Olympic outreaches stay on the main page or fork to its own article? Gah, if no one is going to be bold one way or the other, I guess I'll just fork it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the problem with the Youth_With_A_Mission#Support_for_Ephrain_R.C3.ADos_Montt section is that it simply doesn't fit on the Youth With A Mission article page. Perhaps it should be moved to the Loren Cunningham page?
I'll be glad to do that if no one else has the time. Delhiwallah (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of Olympic outreaches could warrent there own article, but it's not like they are a seperate part of the organization. Branches like KKI, MA, and the various schools can warrant there own articles, but I don't think a series of outreaches would. (I probably misspelled at least one of those words) Saksjn (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say just leave the Olympic stuff where it is, lest, on it's own, it becomes a seldom visited article stub. Delhiwallah (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

expert needed response

Would one of our leaders be considered an expert. I know some people that have been in YWAM for a long time and could contribute significantly to the history section. Saksjn (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the notability of those involved in the organization? There's way more authors than the two journalists that are quoted, and from what I understand, none of the people who are experts can contribute because they are not third party sources. Would books from more than 10 YWAMers be useful? Within YWAM there's way more authors than that. Would the census within the organization be used? This article allows more freedom for critics than for any long time YWAMer. Is there any journalist willing to look into it, interview the people quoted? Since the International YWAMer magazine is not viewed a "legitimate source" how can additional positive stories be added? By not viewing smaller papers as a useful source, it feels like an impossible task. Even larger sources are excluded. LA Times published the best one, yet it is behind the "for fee curtain now"...as are many other sources." Keiko234 (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Books from 10 YWAMers could be useful where they talk about YWAM itself, as well as the census, even the international YWAMer magazine--but all this must conform to WP:SELFPUB. Even the LA Times story is probably less than the cost of a latte. ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could an interview with a notable long time YWAMer be used as a source for the history section. I could try to set up an interview with Steve Sizemore, Dean Sherman, Micheal Berg, or several others. The chance of interviewing Loren Cunningham is low, I've only met him twice and he rarely comes to Orlando, but its not impossible. Saksjn (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultic allegations and disaffiliations 1983-1994 I suggest merging this section with the other criticisms toward the end of the article. It seems to make the most sense to have criticisms in the same section especially since David Clark's rebuttal follows. Let me know your thoughts please. -R —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robiwan74 (talk • Robiwan74 (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Robiwan74, 12 March, 2008[reply]

Either way; I don't care how the article is structured. If we need outside commentary, I'm in favor of that as well. It seems unusual not to note criticism in the lead to summarize the points, though. I have a few more that I can add as well. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youth With A Mission - dead/misleading references

There appears to be a number of false, dead, outdated and/or (apparently) misleading links and references in the Youth With A Mission article.

I'd like to do a bit of clean up and remove these dead and/or misleading references. However, although some broken links and dear reference citations some seem ripe for deletion, I do not want to ruin other Wiki author's previous research and notations. So if a legitimate mistake has been made, or my understanding is limited in these matters, I'd like to open these references up for comment.

Thus, here's a list of incorrect, false, dead, or blatantly misleading links which are, in my opinion, awaiting deletion:

Misleading Reference #1

Youth_With_A_Mission#_note-MiamiHerald2000 - ^ a b Squire, Aurin. "Parishioner answering missionary call", Miami Herald, May, 2000. Retrieved on 2007-12-11. ""They're popular on college campuses," Channer said. "It's like this great big happy family and you start spending more time with them and less with your actual family and friends.""

This issue has been resolved and offending reference deleted Delhiwallah (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason 1

The reference does not quote the Miami Herald. It's actually a Rick Ross narrative of an alleged article which is not available at the Miami Herald online archives. Issue resolved Delhiwallah (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that's Ross narrating, but am looking into it, see below. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason 2

The subject of the article, a lady by the name of LaToya Channer, was not yet involved with YWAM at the time of the alleged article's creation. It was an upcoming event as described by the article. Furthermore, the quoted comment "They're popular on college campuses," Channer said. "It's like this great big happy family and you start spending more time with them and less with your actual family and friends." is referring to an un-named group that Channer said she got involved with in the past during her college career. This quote has nothing to do with YWAM. Rick Ross likely included it on his site as a reference to the nature of cult's on college campuses and definately not at all relating to Youth With A Mission.

See the Rick Ross article at http://www.rickross.com/reference/youth/youth5.html

That's odd, I have asked him to clarify this for us. Good catch. You may delete. I'll put it back only with the original source, when found. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ross has no additional information so I am deleting. ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to look into this and delete it. Delhiwallah (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading Reference #2

Youth_With_A_Mission#_note-Ross_Report - ^ a b c d Ross, Rick A. (October). Youth With A Mission (html) (english). Retrieved on 2007-12-11. “One former DTS student wrote, "I see how my mind was played with. I feel ripped off—it's just not fair to be taken advantage of". The author of one report stated, "hopefully YWAM is not deliberately brainwashing recruits…they want to do God's work so badly and yet it's wrong". The "ends do not justify the means". Taking into consideration all the available information, it seems to me, that it would not be prudent to recommend Youth With A Mission or any of its Discipleship Schools to anyone.”

Reason 1

The reference does not quote Sara Diamond's book Spiritual Warfare. It's actually another Rick Ross narrative from 18 years ago. The Rick Ross narrative (found at http://www.rickross.com/reference/youth/youth6.html does not include even a single reference or citation that gives us any assurance that his article is well-researched, factual, or verifiable.

[That] is the Rick Ross report this refers to. He doesn't quote Diamond, but summarizes. Though he doesn't use inline citation like this article, the references are there, and it seems that all are verifiable besides possibly the Cult Awareness Network information, since that organization was not only put out of business by but also taken over by Scientology. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that we delete the Rick Ross reference altogether, but simply that we remove the citation between the Sara Diamond text and the Rick Ross report which is speculative, messy, and lacks insight. Ross' comments that "It seems that YWAM has sought political influence" and his apparent quoting that YWAM "discussed "electrical strategies"" with various nations is unclear and does not clarify or expound upon Diamond's work. What in the world are "electrical strategies", anyways? And did YWAM err in discussing this?
I would suggest that unless we can get hold of Sara Diamond's book "Spiritual Warfare", and quote from it directly, that we remove the citation link between the "Support for Ephrain Ríos Montt" section and the Rick Ross report Delhiwallah (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spiritual Warfare p.165:

Toward that end [obtaining post-coup funding for the regime in Guatemala from U.S. evangelicals], in June 1982, Rios Montt's aid and Gospel Outreach elder Francisco Bianchi came to the United States for a meeting with U.S. Ambassador to the OAS William Middendorf, then-presidential counsellor Edwin Meese, Interior Secretary James Watt, U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala Fred Chapin and Christian Right leders Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Loren Cunningham (head of Youth With a Mission). About the same time, the State Department held a special briefing for Christian Right leaders, emphasizing the need for private support for the Rios Montt regime.

While drawing further parallels to The Path to 9/11, Blumenthal summarizes Diamond thusly:

According to Sara Diamond's book Spiritual Warfare, during the 1980's YWAM "sought to gain influence within the Republican party" while assisting authoritarian governments in South Africa and Central America.

appropos to today's mention in the article of "business as mission":
Spiritual Warfare p.175:

Even after the scandal surrounding unauthorized U.S. aid to the contras which might have discouraged "private" donors, a number of groups continued their fundraising. One of the most blatant was Christian Emergency Relief Teams based in Carlsbad, California.... CERT teams have accompanied contra combatants during battles with Nicaraguan troops. "We are protected by the freedom fighters. They are our guides. They will not allow us in areas that are not safe," testified a CERT spokesperson.47 Among other supplies, CERT has given contra combatants specially designed hot-weather boots, donated by a company called High Tech Boots, owned by Christians affiliated with Youth With a Mission.48

So you see that drawing the parallel to YWAM itself (not merely Loren Cunningham) is not my original research. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason 2

If someone wants to reference Sara Diamond then please do so. No link hijacking please.

Sorry, would you please clarify? ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading Reference #3

Youth_With_A_Mission#_note-FoxNews2007 - There'e no text here. Issue resolved. Thanks. Delhiwallah (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason 1

The reference does not quote Fox News or Rick Ross. It's just a broken reference and does not support the claims that "Fox News asked Rick Ross to clarify his position. "Youth With A Mission is not a cult," stated Ross, but acknowledged that he receives complaints about the group on a monthly basis and that brainwashing, financial dependence, and a lack of financial transparency are recurring themes in the more "serious complaints" This is a serious claim and needs a proper citation

fixed the link. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. Thanks for updating the link. Delhiwallah (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading Reference #4 (Akha reference)

Youth_With_A_Mission#_note-AHFeden - ^ a b Eden House Children's Home Vern McCulley. “Eden House Children's Home removes Akha girls from their traditional land and Akha villages and exploits them to raise money for the inflated lifestyle of these western missionaries.”

Misleading Reference #5 (Akha reference)

Youth_With_A_Mission#_note-AHF2 -^ a b The Akha Heritage Foundation - www.akha.org.

Misleading Reference #6 (Akha reference)

Youth_With_A_Mission#_note-PortlandIMC - ^ a b Taking Away Akha Children - Does It BOTHER YOU?. Retrieved on 2007-12-22. “...YWAM's Eden House in Thailand, a mission that takes away only Akha teen girls on their own definition of endangered and then works to convert them.”

Reason 1

These references the original author cites are merely personal correspondence and/or opinions. The quoted works sound childish and lack verifiable data and/or outside sources. Sounds like jealousy or political disagreement rather than any reasonable dispute. Do these guys really intend to rail against an orphanage and call it "genocide" and "racist"? Move on, folks.

The Foundation's complaints were noted in the media, and it seems to be the foremost authority on affairs of the Akha people. McDaniels' interview in the New Mandala (a publication of Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies at Australian National University) suggests his opinion has some weight, and also there gives specifics on why he believes that taking Akha orphan girls away from villages and converting them to Christianity in the absence of outside voices might be considered genocide. What the article does not say is that McDaniels has voiced concerns that Eden House is involved in pandering. Other sources which you may consider much more mainstream lend creedence to the idea that YWAM, in other instances, may not be thorough in documenting their legal authority to transfer children [5][6][Portuguese] and that molestation has been an issue.[7] Shall I add them? I had preferred to omit more sensational details. I would like to know what Saksjn thinks about this as well. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading Reference #7

Youth_With_A_Mission#_note-BiblicalHorizons60

Reason 1

The article being referenced has nothing to do with YWAM and mentions it only in passing, and out of context, as a cult. The reference to YWAM in the cited material has no relation to the original text.

The Ogilvy assertion, that the perception (that YWAM was a cult) had been corrected, evidently had not in the eyes of James B. Jordan, theologian. Jordan is directly referencing a meeting between Loren Cunningham, Walter Martin, and Dr. Alan Gomes in which Loren Cunningham, as it is recorded in the minutes of that meeting published in Lead Us Not Into Deception, admitted he didn't know much about theology; he is also directly referencing well documented claims from non-notable but directly involved apologetic sources which were alarmed at quite a few departures from what is considered orthodox faith, such as the use of alternate names of God from non-Christian religions for the sake of being accessable, and the severity of reactions to questions about theology. I haven't cited Gomes here, though his work is peer-reviewed and academic. It seemed to be the consensus when I arrived here that academic theological sources (apart from YWAMs) held little weight. Perhaps it's a good time to revive that discussion. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ClaudeReigns: The problem with the source you are quoting is the fact that, 1) the source material and the reference are entirely unrelated, 2) the reference author James B. Jordan doesn't write anything about YWAM in the article and simple mentions them flippantly, 3) the reference author does not mention the published work "Lead Us Not Into Deception", 4) the reference author does not mention "Alan Gomes", and 5) the reference article is about Prolifism and sheds no new information on Youth With A Mission whatsoever.
To illustrate my point: If I were to write an article about Spain and, in passing, accused you of being, say, a Conquistador, there would hardly be any reason at all to include that weak link in a Wiki entry for churros, would there? Delhiwallah (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your analogy made me laugh! A better analogy to cults is weeds. Some people use the term subjectively in a general sense. This is like an expert gardener, albeit one who clearly prefers a certain varieties, talking about his distaste for a certain kind of landscaping, while mentioning a particular plant as weed, and sparing us the detail (since the case was already made and since he was talking about landscaping).
Back to our article, the assertion by Ogilvy that the perception that YWAM was a cult had been corrected, is an assertion that opens up the possibility for counterpoint. This is a clear counterpoint. Had Ogilvy been a degreed horticulturist and not been a member of the Committee for Dandelions, we would take his word at face value. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does any of this have to do with Ogilvy? The disputed citation has nothing to do with Ogilvy. I'm speaking of the Prolifism reference which is an entirely unrelated article that passes as nothing more than hearsay. That is, information from others that cannot be adequately substantiated.
Somebody seems to have done a simple search for "YWAM" online and found this link, and then thought to use it over-judiciously as a reference (three times) for completely unrelated articles.
I'd suggest this unrelated reference be removed altogether.


other

Furthermore, there are two more broken references, namely Youth_With_A_Mission#_note-SaraDiamond and Youth_With_A_Mission#_note-DocudramaRWR That refer to absolutely nothing and should be either fixed or deleted as soon as possible. Delhiwallah (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Delhiwallah (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political involvements

Political involvements

Aside from the support for the 1982 coup by Efraín Ríos Montt in Guatemala, YWAM has also been described as having "sought to gain influence within the Republican party."[96][97] On October 14, 2005, Youth With A Mission donated $10 million dollars to train youth for Rod Parsley's Restoration Ohio project which worked on behalf of socially conservative Republicans and included goals to register 400,000 voters and to evangelize one million Ohioans.[126][127]

YWAM giving 10 million I would like documented. There is no headquarters for YWAM and they simply do not have that kind of money. It is completely decentralized. This sounds like the fabrication that happened surrounding David Cunningham's movie Path to 9/11. There was no millions raised or given towards that movie. I don't think there is proof of one dime coming from Youth With A Mission towards the movie. Thanks for checking on this --Rbrewster (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron, The 10 million dollars to Rod Parsley's Restoration Ohio project on behalf of YWAM was announced at the fundraising event as documented by Church and State and TheocracyWatch, run by Cornell University. The 10 million dollars is a small sum in comparison to other projects. It should be clear that if YWAM is brought to the table to help fund the regime of a third world country, then this amount of change is peanuts. If you need further evidence of the deep pockets your own organization, especially as related to projects in Hawaii, I'll be happy to provide more sources. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

further discussion not confined to politics

Claude, I would like the sources please. I know I am biased in some areas towards YWAM, but I also know more than you and most of the contributors about the Organization. If this page is going to be accurate and not a biased page (theocracywatch.org)then it needs both sides. Because of the dynamics of an organization that is multi national, cultural and denominational coupled with the broad structure and decentralization of YWAM, it allows for generalizations to be made. I think the there have been several logical fallacies committed in regards to YWAM on this page. Argument Ad Hominem, Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (it should be believed until proven false), Argumentum ad Veercundiam (accept this because some authority said it), as well as Straw Man. There has been some accurate criticisms as well. Some of us are not proud of some of the early teachings in some locations. If allowed I would like to give the other side of the story on some of the posts that come.

I can give a couple of quick examples. The AKHA Tribe snippet shares such a small amount of information and is put there to make the organization look like they abuse kids. That is horrible and such a misrepresentation. Why not do some research and find out the true story of the AKHA? I can assure it is nothing like that snippet says. But YWAM is put in a place to defend itself when the one making the claim should have the burden of proof. That to me is a fallacy mistake. This should not be allowed on a Wikiepedia site.

The 10 million dollars pledged, did the money actually get donated that would be more accurate to share? It is only put in there to make people distrust YWAM with money and paint it to be a political organization. I assume you are talking about 990 Forms when you say YWAM has deep pockets? What a 990 can not show which I would be glad to help people understand is that a vast majority is designated and we can not use it or we violate their wishes. Each location is also a 501(c)(3) with its own Corporate Board. There is no saving accounts with millions, there is no big accounts that YWAM has for politics and movies. I ask any one to show that. It does not exist. It is all myth. Out of 16,000 staff, in a 170 nations, with hundreds of thousands of people coming through each year, there are such a low number of complaints yet it is made to look so big? Some are valid and that is fine, but perspective would be fair.

The Cunningham film is one of the worst violations of committing several fallacies. This is special pleading fallacy. Only the information that backs up that view is put in. Nothing about ABC stating that this film was completely funded by them. To my knowledge and the facts that I have seen, YWAM did not give any money to ABC or anyone for this movie, but it is easy to assume because David is the kid of Loren and he is a Christian that YWAM must have given. That is Hasty Generalization to assume that there is a link.

The final example is I think it is distasteful and unfair to put the shootings of four young people in which two of them lost their lives under the criticism page. I don't think this would happen with the Universities that have had recent shootings. The young man was sick, the parents asked YWAM for forgiveness, YWAM did not cause in any way (FACT)his illness, but it is made to look like they are at fault some how. I just don't see how this relates to a Wikipedia page.

Thanks for you time. I am an open minded person and realize the mistakes and shortcomings we have had. Again, there are real critiques of YWAM out there, but some of the ones that are on this page commit in my view too many fallacies to post on a reputable site that millions of people read. --Rbrewster (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your devotion to the topic. I admit I am slightly confused at your differences with appeals to authority, since this is one of the criticisms that Bussell and Andrews put forth in their early books, that leaders expected their authority to be unchallenged, and hurt could be inflicted because "God told us to do it." Let's assume for a moment that I have taken a little extra effort to try to evaluate these sources and not simply included them because they sounded bad. Would it surprise you if I had taken the initiative to contact a source or two myself? You admit that you have bias, you contend that TheocracyWatch has bias--what if we all have bias? Then we'd have to think for ourselves and commit to discover what is true.
When all is said and done, I am limited in my ability to absolutely verify all claims, and concede that I must properly attribute to their source those which I cannot. I would love to hop a ship to Thailand and see that all is good and well. McDaniels photographs, however, provide a contrast of Eden House from the color of the native culture elsewhere depicted to girls on Big Wheels in a fenced in compound. It would seem that this is supportive and demonstrative of fact, as an errable assertion of truth relying on others to demonstrate what is while attributing those sources in case they are not, or in case other weight reveals itself. That's what the Project is based on. Consensus changes based on better arguments and more sources.
A "burden of proof" concept is a legal concept and has merit. If YWAM announces publicly that it will give $10 million dollars to a certain cause, then I assume that a good Christian organization with interest in its reputation will not renege. What you seem to be asking for is a notorized photograph of a signed check. It doesn't work that way here. Your argument actually lends creedence to support for greater financial accountability in religion, which is what the recent Congressional hearing about religious leaders seemed to indicate was necessary. The David Cunningham film entry does not make mention of a sum, or allege that money changed hands. Loren Cunningham did respond to these questions--and other sources pointed to other possible donors of the missing money to the project. Money was unaccounted for and Loren Cunningham answered questions about his organizations possible involvement. I wasn't there but I'm reasonably confident he made the denial.
The reason that primary sources have a different treatment in articles is that it is commonly recognized that one can be too close to a situation to evaluate fact. When you claim the fact that Matthew J. Murray was in no way harmed by discipleship in and disaffiliation from your organization, I find myself coming back to that fallacy you mentioned. Appeal to authority, as a self-described person who knows more than I do about YWAM, is insufficient. You make no claim to reliably evaluate psychiatric disorders. Were Paul R. Martin making the same claim, I would believe it without question. Perhaps I am in error. There is no original research in the article to suggest that a conclusion to the affirmative of how you read it is asserted. The idea certainly is supportable, but perhaps tomorrow Dave Andrews will approach a journalist and correct us about the guy who was taken away to an asylum. I hope so. I think the disaffiliate community would breathe a sigh of relief with you. Dave Andrews is a man of the cloth and I have never seen any evidence which would lead me to doubt his word. But all the words by him written in the article are attributed to him, in case they are somehow false or misleading.
Good attribution is what protects this article from believing a thing just because someone said so. Anyone can easily click a link to most all cited here and decide what they think of the source themselves. Still interested in what you think are ad hominem fallacies present. One thing I really can't stand is an ad hominem fallacy. I also can't stand plausible deniability. I also have a low regard for systems of accountability that allow leaders to distance themselves from problems in their organization. You have done a brave thing and offered that there are more valid criticisms of your organization than are presented here. I would very much appreciate that kind of accounting. When I came here, I don't recall any criticisms at all.


You said that you contacted some sources. Did they answer you? Were they YWAM sources?
The reason I use Argument ad Baculum (appeal to force) or Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive)is that some of the people who have a problem with YWAM are not trying to state facts but they are trying to show that YWAM leaders are bad people. They basically are saying "Believe me because these are such bad people" and that is not a logical nor a fair argument. The Moral Government issue is a fair one because it did happen in some locations and there is evidence. It was rejected and the Mission made changes. However, some of the arguments that are put forth come across as being angry at a doctrinal stance, theological view or they were asked to leave. Another fair one which is unfortunate is that some people have had bad experiences and even hurtful ones. That is truly sad and for that most of us in YWAM are ashamed and very sorry. Having said that, all organizations, churches, businesses, have people get hurt by leaders and they feel wronged.
Let me give you an example of someone who uses Argumentum ad Hominem. McDaniels has been vocal about his dislike of the missionaries and does what he can to stop them. It is funny you mention Eden House because I am living in Chiang Rai, Thailand for a year. I know where Eden House is and I personally know the director. This is a man that sold his business and moved over with his wife and kids to help start a home for the girls at risk. He raises money to clothe them, feed them, house them, help them go to college and provide a safe environment. McDaniels uses special pleading fallacy as well as argument from ignorance fallacy. He basically says prove it is not true. He is the one that needs to provide proof because he is claiming something very horrible. I can have the director email or get on here and clear the record. This can be the problem with some peoples claims, no one has the time to check the source to make sure there is not a hidden agenda. The only people that get a salary at Eden House are the Thai staff. No one is getting rich, if anything it has taken a financial toll. What McDaniels does not say is that no one else is taking the girls in. Where do they go when they are in danger of being sold for prostitution or physical violence. He says that Eden House is illegally in the country. That is false. Eden House is a legitimate organization with Project L.I.F.E. http://www.projlife.com/chiangrai.html McDaniels in his source also indirectly says that Vern is taking girls for personal inappropriate reasons. It is implied just read it again. Also, 90% of all houses have big fences here in Chiang Rai. It has to do with Buddhism. The girls are not prisoners, it keeps snakes, dogs and other unwanted creatures out. I am sure the bikes were donated by some church or group for the girls.
How do you request something to be taken off? I would really like to request that this AKKA article be taken off until there can be more proof of what McDaniels is saying.
Regarding the YWAM shootings. I did not mean to use the Appeal to authority, as me being an expert on psychological matters, only that there is no evidence or investigations, so for people to make claims of brainwashing are unsubstantiated. I may have made a mistake by thinking I know more about YWAM than you. So let me ask you if you have more. I have been with them for almost 20 years traveled to 40 nations or so and visited many of the locations. I know several of the leaders personally. If I am mistaken on my statement that I know YWAM better I am sorry and will own up on that one.
I am all for more accountability for finances. We have an accounting firm balance our books and do a once a year review. When the Corporate Board wants we can have audits. We should all be accountable with the money that comes through our organizations.
The problem I have with the 10 million article is that it does not say who pledged the money. Just YWAM, who is that? Was it a staff person with lots of enthusiasm, but no authority to make such a claim? Was it a leader or a donor of YWAM? So, that is why it would be nice to know what YWAM location and who gave the 10 million, and if it ever happened. I think if someone researched YWAM in their accounting they would find that no large donations for movies or politics have ever been made. How do I know this? I know most of the leaders and how the ministries run and they just don't have that kind of cash flow. Remember each YWAM location is a 501 (c)3 with a Corporate Board. Each board is unique and each 501 C 3 is separate. There are no huge corporate funds available to give to to these kind of things.
One thing among many that I am proud of with YWAM is that with an organization this size, with the hundreds of thousands of people going through in some capacity each year that we have a small percentage dissatisfaction. I wish we were perfect, but that is obvious we are not. Every day children are fed and clothed all around the world by a YWAM person. Every day around the world people are getting medical care by YWAM people. Every day around the world there are YWAM volunteers trying to make the world a better place by reaching out to people. We have many critics about how we do this or what we should do, but I don't think we can be criticized for not trying to make a difference.
I would be happy to write something positive about Youth With A Mission with you Claude. What do you have in mind? There is a lot to choose from. Thanks for taking your time to think this through with me. After all my writing I think the YWAM page reflects YWAM well and fair, but I would like you to reconsider the 10 million article and the Akka (Eden House) article. --Rbrewster (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you've requested shall be forthcoming. I'm sorry to add them. I'd rather have more stories about things like the Athens Three, things people have respect for. Perhaps you will write that with me. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too have met some Project Life people while working with a different NGO in Thailand. My first hand observation is that Project Life and Eden House are a respected part of the Thai community and NGO infrastructure in the country.
I appreciate that the speculative natured Akha section has been removed.Ywamer (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for removing the Akha article and considering the other one. I also appreciate the effort to show criticisms of YWAM in a factual way. I just stared being part of Wikipedia and it has been a good first experience. Thanks Claude for your input and fair consideration and feedback. --Rbrewster (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading article structure

The criticism and controversy section is simply too big. There are plenty of sections therein which Delhiwalla has included there which are neither. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think the Forging ahead, Third Millennium, The Path to 9/1, and Colorado Shootings section should be placed under History. Is everyone else in agreement? Ywamer (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. --Rbrewster (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed this today. Sorry for the misplacement. I relocated "Forging Ahead", "Third Millennium", the "Colorado Shootings" and the "Response to Shootings" sections to under History.
I did not move "Path to 9/11" section as this section is: 1) very much controversial in nature, 2) heretofore unproven by cited sources, and 3) not relevant to YWAM's history. To highlight an individuals' filmmaking pursuits as being representative of an organization's history is neither helpful to those browsing WP for information nor accurate in it's structural placement. It is, then, still residing under the Criticism and Controversy section pending further edits that will hopefully add some substantiation to the claims of YWAM involvement. Delhiwallah (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which facts are in dispute? Still thrown off by Green's comments? Blumenthal points out sourced factors that indicate to him an ideological influence. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which facts are in dispute? Still thrown off by Green's comments? Blumenthal points out sourced factors that indicate to him an ideological influence. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing any facts. Nor am I bothered by Green or Blumenthal. But I do think that if there is enough content to discuss regarding the film "The Path to 9/11" then it should be at the Path to 9/11 article, and not sitting inside the YWAM article when it has little relevance to this organization.
Is David Cunningham a member of YWAM? No. Was 'The Path to 9/11' produced or distributed by YWAM? No. Were there any YWAM staff or volunteers involved in the production or cast as actors? Not that we know of. Then let's not hijack the content of a Wiki article while focusing on the personal life of a son of the founder of an organization. Delhiwallah (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed disputed content. As suggested, the content was moved to The Path to 9/11 Wiki article page. Delhiwallah (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone add a link for the article that mentions Youth With A Mission of Montana? There is a link for the St. Croix YWAM location but not one for the Montana location. The link is www.ywammontana.org This is under the outreach section. Keep it consistent.Thanks --Rbrewster (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed pending contextual placement/discussion

The following was removed by myself when cleaning up the Youth With A Mission#Foundational Values section. Neither sentence fit under Foundational Values or, in my reading, other sections. If anybody cares to implement these two ideas let's discuss and/or work them in elsewhere.

"Sara Diamond, citing an interview with Gary North, states that YWAM "sees its role as an on-the-ground combat force against liberation theology."[15] Lynn Green, speaking on behalf of YWAM, disagreed that post-modernism is detrimental to youth, because of its oppositions to scientific materialism.[16]"

Cheers, Delhiwallah (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aghast that you'd delete reliably sourced and relevant information about the philosophy and aims of YWAM simply because you have a problem matching it semantically with the subject heading, I'm restoring this. Perhaps you should suggest alternate titles for the subject in an effort to seek consensus rather than continuing down this path. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed tagged unsourced and poorly written criticism subheading

Here's what was up:

Other religions

YWAM occasionally works in places where common religion is already established. In 2005, YWAM members took a trip to Sadr City, Iraq. YWAM has been known to work in high risk nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan.[citation needed] This is a criticism that should be directed at the common Evangelical belief that seeking to convert those of other religions is valid, rather than particularly at YWAM.

Analysis

If you want to reflect a criticism of YWAM's efforts at proselytizing those in other religions 1) find a source that criticizes YWAM specifically (not evangelists in general) and make sure it is a reliable source. 2) paraphrase it in a specific way that demonstrates (sources) criticize YWAM for proselytizing to (target group) for reasons x and/or y and/or z 3) cite it. You can look at the Athens three (well publicized) but prepare to also address how they were exhonorated. You can look to the Turkish extradition of YWAM missionaries as illegal proselytes (if you have the microfiche and can read Turkish). You can cite scholarly publications such as the New Mandala as to the targetting of Buddhists. But please, please, please don't arbitrarily toss uncited, unattributed, pseudocriticisms in the criticism section. It's not good writing.

Yeah, YWAM works in Iraq and Afghanistan. They work in 169 other countries, too. They ain't picky. Show me a reliable source that points out the longstanding trend of YWAM working in lock-step with military actions and factions, and I'll show you a criticism. (Or should I show you?) I mean, what the critics of YWAM really seem to be saying, if I read them rightly, is that YWAM takes advantage of military, political, and economic force to subjugate the world, sector by sector, to a spirituality of utter submission. Taken in sum, they seem to ask the YWAMer if they themselves are the territorial spirit they pray against. That's my synthesis, and you'd never see me add it to the article unless someone really heavy said it. While that far overspeaks the limited concerns of most critics, the individual criticisms from Busell through Sara Diamond to the Akha Foundation and nearly everything in the middle point in this direction, and it's overtly what Sara Diamond was getting at on a larger scale, with YWAM being just one piece in the puzzle.

For those just breaching the surface of the criticisms of YWAM, I've read literally hundreds upon hundreds of journalistic articles about YWAM through Google News plus dozens of critical Christian essays about YWAM, and what you don't hear is "Those YWAM missionaries really spoiled these kids" or "I'm really concerned that YWAM isn't doing enough to foster business and governmental connections" or "I felt my time with YWAM was a little too permissive" or "I am uncomfortable with YWAM's orthodox take on Christianity". Just to point out what I never read in thousands of articles. I'm confident that the cogent criticisms and the passing askance about YWAM all boil down to varying shades of authoritarianism, plutocracy, cronyism, and convenient misinterpretation of scripture to these ends. That being said, not every critic thinks as the Lyndon Larouche movement that YWAM is demonstrably the direct heir of the Hitler Youth movement. Moderate critics deserve representation in a moderate voice. There are sources, like the India news article that casually observed YWAM making homeless children sit for a show on the bare concrete, so moderate that you'd barely notice they exist. Such sources beg for unwieldy synthesis to even rate citation. If what you're really going for is a duly weighted article, then go for some sources with some weight. In article separated into criticism and promotional praise, it's important to weigh the mean and extremes. There is a form of consensus among critical POV's--but it is broadly spread across a spectrum.

I'm just as sure that the average YWAM'er POV is, "Wow, I'm just trying to have a fun and meaningful vacation, help people, and know God." Mostly because I've heard it enough from the startled reactions to the criticisms here. These readers and editors deserve better sourcing and better writing lest they leave this article dismissively thinking "they hate us because we've got Christ." Besides being vague, uncited, and poorly attributed, the statement above which I pulled from the article fails to expose a perspective which might suggest that there might be any moral problem having a 'fun and meaningful vacation', 'helping people', and 'knowing God'. Go read Criticism of Walmart. Each paragraph represents arguments that point out the moral problems with 'shopping at the cheapest place in town to save some money'. It's what seperates critical writing from trivia. In an article separated in sourcing from primary sources to critics, that's what you go for. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Street

Has anyone heard of it, it is a youth program run by YWAM in Townsville, Newcastle and other palces in Australia. it involves staff as well as people on their dts helping the youth grow in god, often the youth are not christians and provides them with the alternative palce to hang out, rahter then going to parties where many things can go wrong. i am new to wikipedia but i think this should be added under youth ministries, what do you think?

YWAM does such a wide and vast variety of these kinds of activities that to single out what a few bases are doing in Australia would probably not be appropriate to the article. If one were to get down to the specifics of various YWAM ministries around the world, it would just be way too long, many would not be notable enough and it would be very likely impossible to cite reliable sources. Within YWAM there is a vast amount of jargon, lingo, and ministry names that isn't encyclopedic in nature and adding them would not further improve people's understanding of YWAM. Just stating that YWAm is invovled in all different kinds of ministry including Youth outreach programs/after school care is adequate and viable to source. Musing Sojourner (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change in their partnership, a point on the criticism section, and looking for a source

It's my understanding that IMB has dropped out of the OneStory Partnership referenced herein. There won't be press as to why it happened and YWAM was not the reason it withdrew, but if anyone else is keeping tabs on this article keep an eye on the referenced site and make the edit when it updates that would be good. I believe it's reference number 81. The analysis of the criticism section is interesting. I think the reason that people respond so loudly to a given criticism is that they are in a part of YWAM for which that criticism may be entirely untrue and to whom that criticism makes no sense. The reality is that a criticism of one part or one campus or "base" of YWAM may be 100% valid, yet have absolutely no bearing on how another YWAM base operates and what it believes. This is the only problem I can see with many of the section's statements. Their criticisms are probably true, for the parts of YWAM that the source was exposed to and was critiquing. However, some parts of the sections just say something to this effect: "Such and Such Theological authority says Such and Such is wrong/heretical with/about YWAM." rather than specifying which YWAM campus the critic was criticizing. of course problematic in this is that many critics of the organization fail to see that YWAM in one part of the world may not be even remotely similiar to YWAM in another. This finally gets to the actual changes I've been mulling over for the article. Wikipedia should probably differentiate different YWAM campuses (i.e. specific criticism should state YWAM Denver, YWAM London etc.,) as much as the sources allow, in order to be as fair as possible to the entire YWAM community. I plan on going through and doing this where the sources allow it to be done at some point, without deleting any criticisms and without going beyond already referenced sources. YWAM bases often times have no legal connection to one another and many times it would be impossible to tell different campuses are part of the same organization without being explicity told it was a YWAM campus you were on. On another note most YWAM bases are entirely seperate legal entities from one another. In fact some bases have been "taken" from YWAM International by the local base leadership who did not want to go in the same direction as YWAM International. Any verifiable and useable sources discussing this would probably help to clarify the diversity, independence, and coalition like nature of YWAM. I do get the feeling that this article does not really convey the level of autonomy that exists for campuses, but without good sources I won't change anything in regards to that. Musing Sojourner (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dave andrews

he claims he was excommunicated from ywam........ ywam does not excommunicate. can someone please clarify this for me. Saksjn (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Eden House Children's Home Vern McCulley". Eden House Children's Home removes Akha girls from their traditional land and Akha villages and exploits them to raise money for the inflated lifestyle of these western missionaries. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateaccessed= ignored (help)
  2. ^ "The Akha Heritage Foundation - www.akha.org". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateaccessed= ignored (help)
  3. ^ "A Man and His Horse Hope to Make a Difference". Proselytizing by Christian missionaries, some with local connections including such organizations as Youth With A Mission (YWAM), Corban College, Campus Crusade for Christ, and Salem Alliance Church, is seen by many as interfering traditions rooted in thousands of years of history. McDaniel said that missionaries often overlook the atrocities or in some cases even cooperate with Thai authorities in the oppression of the Akha ethnic minority. Unfortunately the U.S. government including the State Department express little to no interest in such cases, he said. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateaccessed= ignored (help)
  4. ^ Statement of Faith.
  5. ^ Guidelines for Justice and Reconciliation.
  6. ^ http://www.ywam.org/contents/abo_his_1980.htm
  7. ^ Sara Diamond (1989). Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right. ISBN 9780896083615.
  8. ^ Max Blumenthal. "ABC 9/11 Docudrama's Right-Wing Roots". According to Sara Diamond's book Spiritual Warfare, during the 1980's YWAM "sought to gain influence within the Republican party" while assisting authoritarian governments in South Africa and Central America. Cunningham, Diamond noted, was a follower of Christian Reconstructionism, an extreme current of evangelical theology that advocates using stealth political methods to put the United States under the control of Biblical law and jettison the Constitution.
  9. ^ Clifford Krauss (1991). Inside Central America. New York: Summit Books. pp. 40–42. Ríos Montt put a virtual end to death-squad killings in and around Guatemala City, but he followed the same basic counter-insurgency model pursued by the Lucas García brothers. He gave the strategy a name, "Beans and Bullets." Ríos Montt, in turn, financed and facilitated the work of Evangelical churches to spread the word to the Indians that rebellion was against the will of God and that Catholic liberation theology was the work of the devil.
  10. ^ "Spanish court accuses Guatemala of protecting genocide perpetrators".
  11. ^ Spanish judge makes worldwide appeal for witnesses of Guatemala war atrocities
  12. ^ Guatemalan officials dodge genocide extraditions | International | Reuters
  13. ^ Genocidal Guatemalan generals off the hook | Spero News
  14. ^ Former Guatemalan President Avoids Extradition on Genocide Charges
  15. ^ Sara Diamond (1989). Spiritual Warfare. South End Press. p. 206.
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference LynnGreenCP was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Youth_With_A_Mission&oldid=321822535"