Talk:The Living Word Fellowship

Changes made on 11/9/07

Erased the Magical Christmas Caroling Truck link because the event is not run by or overseen by The Living Word Fellowship, nor by any church in the fellowship. Some of the people who volunteer and contribute to this annual Christmas event attend Living Word Fellowship churches, but there are also many participants who do not. Lsrbarton 00:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on who are you kidding?

Domain ID:D104293522-LROR
Domain Name:CHRISTMASCAROLING.ORG
Created On:01-May-2004 00:36:38 UTC
Last Updated On:23-Feb-2006 19:10:47 UTC
Expiration Date:01-May-2011 00:36:38 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Tucows Inc. (R11-LROR)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:tuZBiHVllYMdwZZr
Registrant Name:Steve Seboldt
Registrant Organization:The Living Word
Registrant Street1:PO Box 958
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:North Hollywood
Registrant State/Province:CA
Registrant Postal Code:91603
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.8189831523
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:tlwadmin@thelivingword.org

Not that I really think it matters, I'm just interested in why TLWF would want to distance themselves from The Christmas Truck?
Captain Planet's Green Mullet 03:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Info Being Deleted

User Bebobopityblue deleted a few sections of info which were somewhat critical of TLWF but did not contain misinformation. Please debate rather than deleting, it looks like you're trying to hide something. I undid these deletes, as well as adding a "Kingdom Facilities" section to talk about Shiloh, since Jeremiah thought it superfluous to include in the headline.Captain Planet's Green Mullet 18:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

View of others

Will someone explain how Churches of the Living Word view other Protestant and Catholic denominations? Are other denominations considered "unsaved" or just confused?

The founder was a believer in the one true church idea. He said that all sectarian division is wrong and that "division" or denominations are wrong. To quote: "in the Bible there is only one true church, and it was not divided into denominations.”. However, like most of the one true church people he believes that a church founded on his ideas is the only correct church.

In answer to your question, he (the founder) didn't believe in denominations and considers all christians part of one big church but he also holds that any individual church not run in conformity to his ideas is a church in error. Being "saved" is in two phases. The first one depends on what they call a personal relationship with Christ which is (to them) independent of denomination or church. But the catch is that if you don't believe what the (Living Word) believes, its self-evident proof that you don't have a relationship and are therefore not saved. They also thought that Stevens was the only true leader of the one true church. The second salvation (turning into a christ-like immortal being or Elijah type being) they believe is a slow process of transformation which can only be accomplished in fellowship with an organzation and a leader to support the individual.

So in summary, there is one church. Those who follow the ideas of living word are the correct followers of that one church and everyone else is in error. Being saved doesn't depend on the church (including Living Word) but anyone who is saved will self-evidently understand and accept that Living Word is correct. And that final salvation can only be gained through group activity.

As a disclaimer, I'm not nor ever have been a member of Living Word. I put the above material together by reading their works and combining it with ideas they are with other evangelical christian groups.

The above is correct insofar as it represents the teaching of the founder that there is only one church which, according to scripture, is the "Body of Christ." All who share reconciliation to God through the blood of Jesus Christ are member of Christ's Body, and hence, the church. Denominational structure, however, is not scripturally based and in most instances represents an organizational structure created one or two generations after a moving of God has left of peoplet and that people have lost the life of the Spirit's moving and retain only a form of what God did for the founder or founding group, yesterday. The founder taught that all organizational structure of the believer's fellowship, other than as laid out in the New Testament (specifically, Ephesians 4) is "Babylon" and something which God will ultimately lead his believers to depart from. Thus, there is a clear distinction between the individuals within a denomination, who are brothers and sisters in Christ, and the denomination as a structure, which is something that is generally apostate.

Some of the more immature, but zealous, members of the Living Word Fellowship, in the past ascribed to the founder, John Robert Stevens, an exclusivenesswhich Mr. Stevens himself did not claim. He never claimed to be the leader of the one true church or any similar claim. Rather, he was adament that Christ was the head of the church and divinely appointed ministries were servants of Christ, for the sake of the spiritual life and growth of the Body of Christ. While he recognized that Christ commissioned him as an Apostle of restoration to the church and imparted a ministry in revealing God's Word, and that his diligence to these callings was necessary in order to be accounted as a faithful steward, Mr. Stevens did not foreclose recognizing the amointed ministries of others. Indeed, he taught that the Scriptures will continue to bring an unfolding revelation of Jesus Christ and that greater truth would be revealed from the Scriptures in future generations. Any appearance of exclusiveness was the outgrowth of persecution from, and rejection by, more traditional denominational churches which, in the 50s and on into the early 70s, rejected the founder's teaching that God was restoring the New Testament ministries of Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, to the church. Mr. Stevens never taught that those who did not ascribe to the teachings of the Living Word Fellowship were unsaved. Rather, those who were part of fellowships lacking this move of the Spirit did not have the opportunities for rapid spiritual growth and discipleship that were available in the Living Word Fellowship churches.

In this regard, it must be appreciated that that emphasis was not so much on the initial salvation of the believer, as is the case in many evangelical fellowships. Rather, the emphasis was on "going on with Christ," that is, the maturity of the believer after the initial salvation experience. Apostolic teaching from the scriptures was recognized as the means by which maturity could be obtained (Heb. 4:12). Indeed, the centrality of the teaching was the Lordship of Jesus Christ over the individual believer and over the church fellowship. Salvation is the first baby step into this divine life which is promised to the believer by Christ.

The above writer is correct insofar as describing the teachings as holding that the maturity of the believer will only be achieved through participation in the giving and recieving which is part of the expression of the Body of Christ (Eph. 4- the members of the Body of Christ being built up by that which every joint supplies). The revelation from the scriptures also included the principle of oneness, as a key ingrediant to the maturity of the believer (the Gospel of John recounts the prayer of Christ in the waning days of his earthly ministry: And the glory which You have given Me, I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them, and You in Me, that they may be perfected in oneness, that the world may know that You did send Me, and did love them, even as You did love Me." Thus, Christian maturity was linked by Mr. Stevens, to the believers' participation in the relationships and activties of the respective fellowships.

I am not now a member of a church in the fellowship of the Living Word Fellowship, but was so for 26 years, beginning in 1972.

View of death

What does the Church of the Living Word believe happens to its members who experience physical death?

I'm not sure they think about it much. The focus is always on creating the new spiritual kingdom where the leaders will be transformed into their immortal bodies as quickly as possible. Its possible that when that happens, the leaders will have the power to selectively raise the dead and then help them finish their transformation. Its an important question historically with them because they never really recovered from Stevens (their leader) himself dying (it was not supposed to happen).

As noted in other comments and verifiable by reference to the Living Word website, the doctrinal positions of the Living Word fellowship are virtually identical to other fundamental non cessationist christian churches including the view of physical death etc. In fact, the Living Word teaching promotes a higher view of Scripture than many (but not all) fundamentalist Churches it includes the strong conviction that not only is the Bible the inspired, inerrant word of God, the basis for all teaching and doctrine, but the Scriptures are the only true foundation of the Church with regard to structure and practice (as opposed to the many human traditions seen throughout the church world which have no basis in scripture). Thus the LW fellowship believes that the power,the purity, the ministries and the quality of relationships found in the primitive apostolic church as portrayed in the New Testament is the true template and the goal to which the universal Body of Christ and every local church should aspire. It is believed that the Holy Spirit painstakingly defined the structure of the Church in the pages of the New Testament for a reason - that all future generations would diligently build according to that pattern (Eph. 4:11-13). Whether or not a church holds to the New Testament pattern can never be the basis for questioning the salvation experience of the members and the legitimacy of the church expression etc. since we are all members of one Body by our acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior. The basis of unity is infinitely more powerful and important than the apparent differences in church organization etc.. However, it is believed that the power and efficacy of the Church is directly related to adherance to the scriputral pattern.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahte2974 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Fundamentalist

On 22 April 2007 Andycjp removed reference to the theology of The Living Word Fellowship being fundamentalist, indicating that the reference did not conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. My question is: what is POV about calling a fundamentalist theology fundamentalist? It is not a pejorative word is it? Wouldn't that make the entire Fundamentalist Christianity article a POV nightmare? Don Hender, a leader in the Living Word Fellowship, calls it fundamentalist. Living Word Open Study. What exactly is not NPOV about referring to its theology as fundamentalist? Is this an internal squabble among Christians where various sects want to claim the fundamentalist heart-ground as their own? --Bejnar 03:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that site is affiliated with The Living Word Fellowship we are talking about here, which is based in the US and doesn't have any churches in the UK to my knowledge. I would not say TLWF is fundamentalist since they do not believe the creation was literally 7 days, and they believe the earth is more than 5000 years old.Captain Planet's Green Mullet 18:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes - June 16, 2007

I wanted to explain the changes I made to this article on this date. I felt it was important to summarize the general beliefs of The Living Word Fellowship in the introductory paragraph, so I made that the focus of the paragraph.

“This organization is also known as The Church of the Living Word…” – I removed this because it is not true. There is a church in The Living Word Fellowship called Church of the Living Word, but the name refers only to that particular church (located in North Hills, California) and not to the fellowship as a whole (see http://www.thelivingword.org/tlwf/churches.shtml).

“and is sometimes referred to as ‘The Walk.’” – although the fellowship was called “the Walk” at various times, that title is not used very much today, if at all. I think this would be a valid topic to discuss later in the article, but it is an historical point and should not appear in the opening paragraph. Just as an aside, my understanding is that John Robert Stevens called it “The Walk” at a time when there was no official title for the group of churches. Once the name “The Living Word Fellowship” had been established, the name “the Walk” went out of circulation.

“The organization runs a large facility in Iowa called Shiloh.” – this is a true statement, but since the introductory paragraph should be a summary of the most salient general points, I feel that this should be discussed later in the article. Jeremiah 01:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK, so why just delete it? I created a "Kingdom Facilities" section to house this info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain Planet's Green Mullet (talk • contribs) 18:37, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Changes - August 9, 2007

I deleted the reference to “the Walk” because it was never the title of The Living Word Fellowship. Although it's true that for a short time the Fellowship was unofficially known as "the Walk" in certain circles, the term hasn't been in use since the 1970s. John Robert Stevens had this to say about the subject, from his message "Do You Know the Lord?" (4/8/82):

We come to be called "the Walk." That’s sacrilege. We’re not the Walk. It was taken from the fact that people wanted a walk with God. It was trying to characterize a movement. This is not a movement. This is a search to know the Lord.

I believe that he used the term “sacrilege” because to specifically call one group of churches “the Walk” would be to exclude others from also having a relationship with God. The term comes from the phrase “a walk with God,” a Scriptural term (from Genesis 5:24, 6:9, as well as many references in Galatians, Ephesians and other books of the Bible) that John Robert Stevens sometimes used to describe a daily relationship with the Lord. It was always a foundational belief of John Robert Stevens that God was available to everyone, not just to a few. He was adamant that, as it says in the Scriptures, all would know the Lord, from the least to the greatest (Jeremiah 31:34, Hebrews 8:11). Stevens knew that there could never be one “Walk,” and that the Lord leads all who seek Him. Jeremiah 21:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

recent edits

Jeremiah mountain why have you changed my recent edits? everything is factual and verifiable. What you have done is known as vandalism. If you try it again i will report you.Jesus Sandoval (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Tipton source

@Bejnar: Although Tipton does talk about a Living Word Fellowship, it is different that the subject of this article, which is on The Living Word Fellowship. They had two different founders. The Tipton source does not accurately inform the writing of this article. Jeremiah (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not actually read the Tipton book, but information about the Living Word Fellowship given in reviews of the book that I have seen is generally consistent with other information about LWF. That is, they describe LWF as a Pentecostal movement that attracted a counterculture element and had some drug use. --Orlady (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

sources

i put this up for afd which was closed as no consensus. however, the original problem still exists. the book by tucker is the only appropraite source. i will have to delete the other sources as two of them are primary sources (the church's own website) and the other is another website that hardly counts as a reliable source. however, if i removed the information from these sources the article will only have two sentences. new sources need to be found and the article written based on them. Jessi1989 (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• There are plenty of secondary sources for this organization. It was involved in a long and important federal battle over religious rights concerning its church in Maui, Hawaii. Here is a long overview of the church [1], here is a synopsis of the case [2], some other articles about the case [3], and a ton of google search results: [4]. Also, primary sources may be used to provide supplementary info. Captain Planet's Green Mullet (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• these sources need to be added to the article. the primary sources are not currently providing "supplementary" information, they are providing all the information except for two sentences. the article should be re-written, based on the secondary sources, and then any supplementary info that is not covered in the secondary sources can be added from the primary ones. Jessi1989 (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please don't disrupt Wikpedia to make a point. It is not necessary to supply a reference citation after every individual phrase or sentence. For example, two sentences "At its peak in the 1970s, the fellowship had about 100 member congregations" and "Membership declined after founder Stevens' death in 1983" are both supported by the source at the end of the second sentence. By treating the first sentence as unsourced and deleting it, you created a nonsensical passage.
  There are plenty of articles in Wikipedia, particularly about organizations and institutions, that would be eviscerated if primary sources were not used to provide key details. In this article, the article is supported by several independent sources that tell different facets of the church's story, but the LWF's own publications are the single best source for some basic facts about the LWF. --Orlady (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• hi, as far as i'm aware i'm not disrupting anything and i'm certainly not trying to make a point. i see that a second reliable source has been added and it's starting to look a lot better now. sorry for any disruption you think i have caused, i was just trying to help. Jessi1989 (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

notability issues

the only coverage of the subject of this article in secondary sources are very brief mentions in one book and one magazine article. this clearly fails wp:n. Jessi1989 (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see my prior comment on this subject:

According to (WP:ORG#Alternate_criteria_for_specific_types_of_organizations), Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. This implies two necessary conditions, together giving sufficient criteria for notability:

1. The scope of activities are national or international in scale. The organization discussed in this article is certainly international in scale. This fact is independently verifiable.
2. Information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. Here are two areas which meet this condition:

1. The topic of this article was the subject of a documentary. "Vain Glory" was created by Yoko Ono's ex-husband, Tony Cox. It's his account of his involvement with the church. [5] If nothing else, this makes the article notable for Beatles enthusiasts/historians.
2. More importantly, the topic of this article was involved in a long and important federal battle over religious rights concerning its church in Maui, Hawaii. Here is a long overview of the church [6], here is a synopsis of the case [7], some other articles about the case [8], and a ton of google search results: [9].

This organization is notable. Click on "Random Article" link and you are sure to stumble upon an organization less notable than this one. Probably within a few clicks. This article is incomplete, but could be an interesting article for those curious about the organization.

Captain Planet's Green Mullet (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Captain Planet's Green Mullet (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

hi, sorry, maybe i missed it, but where in the sources does it say that the scope of this organization is national/international? the fact that less notable organizations have articles is certainly no reason for this one to exist, if you can find such articles so easily you should be nominating them for deletion per wp:n. Jessi1989 (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

also i think that this sentence from the guideline you referred to is very relevant here "the text of the article must be supported by independent sources, and avoid primary research". the vast majority of this article is based on primary sources. they are still not being used in a "supplementary way" as you claimed in the previous section. Jessi1989 (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article sucks and is based mostly on primary sources, but secondary sources do exist, as I have pointed out. The article should be rewritten, not deleted. Captain Planet's Green Mullet (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

my point is that for this to be notable there must be a verifiable source for the fact that "The scope of activities are national or international in scale". i can see no evidence of this in the two reliable sources. Jessi1989 (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

In my book, an organization that operates in the United States, Canada, Brazil, and Mexico (four different countries) is "international in scale." Even if you contend that these are not actually different countries, you are misconstruing Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) by quoting it out of context.

A major emphasis there is on the national/international reach of the secondary sources that have covered the organization. The 3rd-party independent sources cited in The Living Word Fellowship article include a published book (publisher in Michigan, USA) and a U.S. magazine with a huge national circulation. Furthermore, the organization was the subject of a documentary film released in 1985 and offered on videotape in 1986. This clearly goes far beyond "attention solely by local media."

The section of the guideline that includes the words "national or international in scale" also says: "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive." Since The Living Word Fellowship was established in 1951 and still exists (longevity) and had 100 member churches at one time (size of membership), it appears to exhibit at least two additional factors that demonstrate notability.

I don't know why you are trying to suppress the information in this article (I can't tell whether you find the article too positive or too negative), but it appears to me that you are pushing a point of view. It would be more productive to work on improving the article. --Orlady (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

hi, just because my opinion differs from yours doesn't mean you have to accuse me of pushing a point of view. i've explained why i think this article isn't notable, and you have explained why you think it is. why would i try to improve an article the subject of which i do not believe fits the criteria that subjects of wikipedia articles are required to have? i don't understand why you are being so offensive, inferring that i don't know that the USA is a different country from mexico, that's pretty rude really. the point i am trying to make is that neither of the reliable sources mention that it operates in any country other than the USA. the evidence of notability you are using must be supported by reliable sources, but it isn't. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The article has already been nominated for deletion 3 times. The consensus is always that the article needs work but should exist. It gets frustrating to keep going over it, and people get touchy. Hopefully we can have this discussion with maximum objectivity so we don't have to keep rehashing it.

So, back to your original complaint: WP:ORG#Alternate_criteria_for_specific_types_of_organizations does not stipulate that a third party talk state explicitly national/international scope of the organization, only that the scope of the organization is national/international, and that its activities be verified by a third party. Therefore, the primary source (the organization's web site listing of its international churches) is enough to prove the sufficiency of scope.

Captain Planet's Green Mullet (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I support keeping the article on LWF in Wikipedia for being noteworthy. I authored three articles on its predecessor, the Church of the Living Word (aka The Walk), for Cornerstone magazine in the 1980s. Various articles on The Walk appeared in the international SCP Newsletter from Berkeley, Calif., as well as articles in a variety of books on NRMs in the 1980s and 1990s. The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Cults, Sects, and World Religions (Zondervan, 2006) has an article on them on pp. 76-79. I am also writing an article on LWF for a forthcoming encyclopedia by a major U.S. publisher. In short, the group is sufficiently noteworthy to merit continued attention in Wikipedia. EricP (talk) 05:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Eric. Can you share with me the sources you're using for your article? Thanks! Jeremiah (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Share here, or on your talk page? Here, I guess. Main source will be TLW's own web site. They provide a lot of info on their theology, background, and history. EricP (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Kyoko Chan Cox

how abt a section on the group's most famous congregant, and the 10? 15? 20? year SEARCH for her?! 209.172.25.135 (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The Living Word Fellowship is now trying to re-brand itself

Their latest inspiration is Christian marketer Phil Cooke who tries to help churches become more marketable in the Internet age. Their current web site offers a sanitized history of the Living Word Fellowship, leaving out the divorce that led to the marriage of Gary & Marilyn Hargrave and other divorces and remarriages among the leadership (sometimes multiple, as in the case with Marilyn's son and others)that led to their current status. In general, it attempts to portray the fellowship as believing most of what other Christian fellowships believe, but going deeper into Kingdom truths. They do not reference some of their fellowship's other beliefs, such as how the Kingdom of God was ushered in on December 12, 1979, seven years after John Stevens allegedly was transported into the future. Or their belief that John Stevens' death brought about the final judgment of Satan. They have also taught that their present-day apostles are exempt from Paul's requirement of having seen Jesus Christ, if they can claim to have seen the Lord Jesus Christ in the person of Marilyn Hargrave. Anthony.pettit (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC){User talk:Anthony.pettit|talk]]) 19:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous user attempted to remove some content from this comment - reverted the edit. Captain Planet's Green Mullet (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A few corrections to the above statements are in order. "They do not reference some of their fellowship's other beliefs, such as how the Kingdom of God was ushered in on December 12, 1979, seven years after John Stevens allegedly was transported into the future." Actually, the claim was not that the Kingdom of God was ushered in on Dec 12, 1979 but rather that another phase or level of the kingdom was ushered in. The distintion is important since it is an acknolwedgement that the KOG invades the earth in stages as stated in the parable of the leaven hid in the meal. Since as taught by Christ the kingdom "does not come with signs to be observed" and the "kingdom is within you" no outward manifestations are necessary to confirm a new level of the kingdom. A valid interpretation is that another level of the spirtual dominion of the Lord Jesus Christ over his people was experienced at that time.

"or their belief that John Stevens' death brought about the final judgment of Satan". This idea is definitely not taught within the Living Word fellowship - the reality of spiritual warfare with Satan and his hosts is acknowledged often as is done in many fundamental churches. Hence, this idea should not be included in LW doctrinal statements.

In general, virtually all of the assertions about the LW fellowship that have been made by critics are at best distortions and generally pure fabrications. Unfortunately, basic standards of journalistic integrity have been rejected for so much of the information disseminated on the Internet including the references cited in this article. Rather than using multiple, credible primary sources uninformed secondary and tertiary sources are used, none of which could stand the light of day if a fair and balanced investigation was conducted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahte2974 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A few "corrections to the corrections" may be in order. John Stevens did claim to have had a vision where he was transported 7 years into the future. This experience was alleged to have happened on December 12, 1972. In it, Stevens claimed to be looking back from a vantage point in the Kingdom. He claimed to have seen people who "made it" into the Kingdom and others who "did not make it." He described Kingdom cities, stages of tribulation, and many other facets. Much of it was recorded in a book titled "The Shape of Things To Come," published by the Living Word. This was a major emphasis of the church for over 7 years. Stevens said that the two main characteristics of those who made it were the family spirit and the prophetic community. Later, the Living Word Fellowship may have tried to distance itself from these claims of the vision that was to have occurred that day, because the experience itself may have been doubted by the leadership. Perhaps the issue of whether this vision is considered valid or invalid has been addressed to the congregation. Or perhaps it has not. But it is disingenous to deny that this teaching was a major emphasis from at least 1972 to 1979 -- and even later as the leadership attempted to interpret the meaning of John Stevens' death. Many messages were delivered in the mid 1980s stating that John Stevens by his death had "taken down Satan" and that the final enemy to be defeated was now death. Perhaps now that the Fellowship is trying to appear more mainstream they will deny that such concepts were ever voiced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyP24 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)