Jump to content

Talk:Lakewood Church

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.108.10.20 (talk) at 06:00, 1 December 2022 (→Christian denomination?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Not NPOV

This article is not NPOV and should be edited by someone with more knowledge of Lakewood Church than I have. [Unsigned comments by User:199.227.153.154, 21:43, 9 February 2006]

I used to go to the church before and after its move to the Compaq center.I went to the grand opening thing I also used to watch the broadcasts all the time and no, they never do show Joel asking for donations. He always does right before he asks everyone "to give a big Lakewood applause for those at home who are just tuning in" and thats when the cammerea would start rollingel sand bag 19:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, seconded. Wouldn't another criticism be...I dunno.....that the church totally didn't accept Katrina refuges during the crisis in New Orleans and that those actions are completely and utterly contrary to what should be preached from the Bible/in the church?--Kugamazog 10:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You saw what they did to the stadiums they were put in. (Or maybe you didn't, since the media conveniently avoided showing it. Defecating and urinating behind every pillar and even between the seats; rampant fighting; unnecessary damage and vandalism, etc.) You think they're gonna let people like that destroy their auditorium? I don't blame the church a bit. Tragic romance 00:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is the style encyclopedic. Portions read like fan narratives. A-giau 08:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added the npov disputed template for the reasons stated above and others; even the criticisms section is actually more about the church’s reply to criticism than the actual criticism itself. -- EdisonLBM 19:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Joel Osteen page has been suffering from similar fan/insider distortions. This page needs a major rewrite. --Crid 20:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a load of bull. This article doesn't need anything negative. What does 'it suffers from fan/insider distortions' mean? it isn't within wikipedia's policy to 'negatize' articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.220.39.36 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 13:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
True, it is not Wikipedia's polocy to 'negatize' (as you say) articles. However, Wikipedia does have a 'Neutral point of view' policy (see WP:NPOV). The concern with this article, in its current state, is that it is written very obviously from an insider's perspective - by a member of Lakewood or someone close to Osteen, for example - and this is likely what Crid meant by 'fan/insider distortions' above. If you have a good knowledge of Lakewood, we encourage you to assist in fixing this article. However, please remember that it is not universally accepted that Lakewood is an excellent church or 'a beacon of light to Houston' (something similar to that phrase was actually in the article until very recently). Try to remain neutral and provide an objective view of the church - if you have any questions or issues, remember that there are quite a few of us that are here to help you. - EdisonLBM 21:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to edit the article by either 1) deleting unconfirmed comments, 2) citing sources where available, or 3) changing the wording to indicate that the comments are unconfirmed. It is difficult when most of the comments come either directly from Lakewood or from those who have a bias in its favor (or a bias against it), as opposed to neutral parties. Hopefully this will help the issue. 128.190.62.54 18:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctrinal Controversy

Is there a reason why there is no mention of the controversy Joel Osteen made with his remarks on Larry King Live that he didn't know whether or not members of other religions went to Hell? --Thudgens 20:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A similar incident is covered in Joel Osteen. If you would like to add the Larry King Live incident, I would say that it belongs there. --EdisonLBM 01:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If your going to include the controversy his remarks made, then perhaps you should also include the letter of apology and retraction he made on those remarks, correcting himself. [Unsigned comment by User:65.161.128.129, 13:25, 24 July 2006]

Confession

The Lakewood "confession" appears to be a prayer chanted during the service. Why would this be notable? Most church services include prayer. Should this be included in the article? Postoak 00:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote no - but it might be. I would say that it's less common to chant the same prayer each week than to just include prayer in general (and, if it is something that really is quite rare, it could warrant inclusion), but I'm by no means an expert. In general, though, this article reads too much like a brochure that might be handed to a potential member, and I think the prayer is certainly a part of that. - EdisonLBM 00:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alot of churches recite the same prayer look at the Lords prayer some do that every week Kennethmaerz (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Notice

I think User:lakewoodfan deserves a round of applause. After accumulating 52,000 attendant the megachurch finally got one that it would appear knows how to properly cite and use wikipedia. Welcome User:lakewoodfan and thanks for the denotations. EvanCarroll (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article reads like an advertisement from the church. Edits have been performed to increase the educational value of the article while omitting extraneous segments especially regarding non-notable staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.78.47 (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edit

In order to prevent further edit warring, I offer this update [to be placed in a "Criticism and controversy" section] to you all to discuss:

On July 29, 2007, evangelist and author Adam Key led a one man protest outside Lakewood Church as services let out. Standing on a soapbox and flanked by signs claiming that Osteen was lying to his congregation, Key preached about repentance to a crowd that mostly kept walking. The protest was apparently in conjunction with the release of Key's book, Your Best Lie Now: The Gospel according to Joel Osteen[1] The video is available on YouTube. [2]

Can anyone provide a legitimate explanation why this should not be included? Don't just cite policies Wikipages, actually list the parts of the policy that would specifically ban this. User:MikeDoughney is specifically invited to comment, but all are welcome. Adamkey (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2008-01-11-Regent%20University%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20or%20Transfer%20Venue.pdf
  2. ^ Preaching Outside Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church in Houston

Tone problems

There are a handful of positive bald face assertions "Despite being the head of an evangelical megachurch, Osteen appeals to people of all faiths and political persuasions." peacock words (under the leadership of), and disjointed and scant mention of controversies or the televised nature of the church. Needs some clean up, hopefully I will get to it myself.--Tznkai (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tone tag after going through the article. I beleive I've addressed the issues and have also given the ariticle some needed rearrangement. Ltwin (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit for addition of internal church workings

The following edit is to add information to the article of how the church works. Another section will also be added for how the church carries out its services and what happens in them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrnavid (talk • contribs) 23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, glad to have you on board. So, when you say "how the church works" are you referring to church polity? Ltwin (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Yes what I meant was how the church carries out its activities. This includes how members take use of the church and what services it provides. I see that this article is missing all of that. (Jrnavid (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Unfortunately, the minute by minute service schedule will have to go. This is an encyclopedia. Ltwin (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You see, Wikipedia articles dealing with individual churches does not, as an encyclopedia, delve into the minutiae of church life. As this is a non-denominational church, the article should ideally focus on these themes:
  1. History
  2. Beliefs/practices
  • The important thing here is to establish what branch or wider avenue of Christianity this church is found in. In this case, evangelicalism. Now that people know what kind of church it is, it is not necessary to explain every small detail of belief. It is important to note what makes this church distinct or notable in relation to the wider Christian world. As famous a Joel Osteen is, this shouldn't be hard. However, this section is about the church, not the man, and it should be focused on what the church believes.
  • An interesting aspect of this would be to explain how Lakewood fits in with Pentecostalism/Charismatic movement.
  1. Polity, government, leadership
  2. Ministries
Once again, these should be notable and why they are notable should be explained. The article doesn't need a list of ministries, we can find that on the church's website.
  1. Music
  • Lakewood has great music and great worship leaders. This is very notable.
  1. Television
  2. Criticism
  • This section needs to adhere to Wikipedia guidlines of course.
Hope this helps. Ltwin (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will expand the Beliefs, Government/Leadership, and Ministries sections with links to provide proof —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrnavid (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me with the reference links I provided? I dont know how to add appropriate names and dates on to them--Jrnavid (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History section needs citations

There are many aspects of a lot of these sections that read like a chruch pamphlet, no aspersions intended. The History sections makes several statements about being racially inclusive, etc that have no citation. Whether these are statements of opinion or fact they are potentially able to be questioned and should be backed by reputable source. I would argue that without a source, these claims are too subjective to remain. Even with a source, I would indicate that they were described as racially inclusive, not that they WERE, as, again, this is not a measurable quantity and open to debate.204.65.34.156 (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency

The denomination cannot be evangelical and non-denominational at once. I want some logic here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.11.202 (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I cannot speak for Lakewood, there are a large number of Evangelical churches that are Non-Denominational. North Point Community Church in Atlanta is one of the largest, but quite a few megachurches are non-denominational evangelical churches. Evangelicalism is a label applied to a movement in the American Christian church, not denominations within the church.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Lyonscc. Think of evangelicalism as a type of Christianity that encompasses many denominational families. There are evangelical Baptists, evangelical Episcopalians, evangelical Presbyterians, evangelical Pentecostals, and evangelical non-denominational churches. As you can see by now, evangelical is an adjective that describes the noun. Evangelical is not a denomination in and of itself, but it specifies what type of Baptist or Episcopalian or whatever Christian is being described. There is a narrower meaning to the word evangelical that refers to Lutheranism (especially in Europe), but this is not the meaning being referred to in this article.
Lakewood is being categorized as evangelical because it subscribes to a theological worldview that is consistent with evangelicalism. The fact that it is non-denominational only means that it does not associate nor is it governed by any larger organization. The church exists, organizes, and regulates itself by its own structures. The term non-denominational does not mean that it cannot identify with a broader belief system. It only means that it is not governed by a larger church body. Ltwin (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where to put?

This seems relevant to me, but I'm unsure which section to put it in, or whether to add a new section? Thanks for your input.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/21/25k-reward-offered-in-600k-megachurch-theft/

peterl (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No altar?

The article says this "church" doesn't have a cross or altar. Then how do they do communion and "altar calls"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B05E:AFBC:3315:684:8950:E013 (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC) They have a portable altar that gets wheeled out for such things. Weaving Spiders Come Not Here (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Lakewood Church/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I rated this article as "start class." It provides more useful information than a mere stub should, including ref. material. Though it needs more citations and should probably be expanded, the information provided is a good start.--Evb-wiki 04:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 04:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2017

Please change "It is the one of the" in line 2, to "It is one of the" , because the sentence includes an extra word ("the"), making it grammatically incorrect. SPhrass (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done — IVORK Discuss 22:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer of non-consensus material

A paragraph about the Hurricane Harvey issue is being copied and pasted here with the claim that it has been discussed at another article and it's the consensus version. First, it's not the consensus version. The line about "contradiction" is being discussed. Second, consensus at one article doesn't make it consensus across the entire encyclopedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it being discussed? All I see if you edit warring. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The single sentence being removed has not achieved consensus at Joel Osteen. Contenteditman is reverting with the claim that it has consensus at the Osteen article and that this phantom consensus automatically applies here. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to have two discussions about the same content on two different talk pages, especially if the participants will be the same, so stop your disruption. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and have updated the Lakewood Church page with that same from the Joel Osteen page. This was discussed on Joel Osteen TALK page. ContentEditman (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lakewood Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poor tone on Texas freeze section

The tone in the language under the Texas freeze heading should be corrected. It‘s written with a point of view and attaches a narrative to a Reuters fact check article. The header shouldn’t mention social media. 173.73.145.25 (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian denomination?

I did some in-depth research into the theology of Lakewood Church and I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s basically deism with some New Thought/Gnosticism thrown in. Why is it that this is still labeled a ‘Christian’ church in Wikipedia when there is barely any mention of Jesus and Biblical things at his sermons, with the church not even having a single piece of Christian iconography in the sanctuary? That globe on display hits home that this is basically a brand new religion. So…what’s going on here?

And no, I’m not an angry Christian with a bloodlust for heretics, I’m a secularist who is absolutely confused with what this whole operation really is. Can this article make it clear that this griff is basically part of some New Age ‘Get Rich Quick!’ kind of spirituality? Calling it a ‘Christian denomination’ clears nothing up about this organization. 50.108.10.20 (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lakewood_Church&oldid=1124919802"