Talk:Calvary Chapel Association

Status of Calvary Chapel Twin Falls

I have a question about the possibly former Calvary Chapel in Twin Falls, Idaho. That church, of course, is the home of CSN International. I know the church now goes by the name of "The River Christian Fellowship," but does anyone know the status within the Calvary Chapel? The church Web site says "nondenominational" but, as the article states, the Calvary Chapel does not claim to be a denomination, and there's a Calvary Chapel logo on The River Christian Fellowship's Web site. I know several Calvary Chapels broadcast on CSN. So, what's the deal? Did they break from Calvary Chapel or are they just using a new name, but still affiliated?

Either way, I do think it's worth mentioning in the Broadcasting section, since CSN was started while the church identified as a Calvary Chapel. The question is how to word it.-J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's an understandable question, certainly. Neither church is listed on the 'official' CC affiliate online directory that I can find when searching for Twin Falls, ID. The two logical conclusions seem to be that either this particular church made a conscious choice to disaffiliate or was involved in something that resulted in disaffiliation. This note at the bottom of the CSN website seems particularly telling (empasis added): "CSN International is a non-profit, Christian radio ministry and is not part of any other group, organization, or corporation, including those with similar names and/or similar goals." Only God knows the full story behind the change; I've stumbled upon and would prefer to avoid the online gossip, innuendo, and hearsay about it and I hope to not cause anyone to stumble into digging for such dirt. IMHO, the broadcasting section only lists current (and not former) broadcasting ministries. Additionally, we could probably find messages by many CC pastors on non-CC-affiliated stations (CC Ft. Lauderdale used to show the Active Word with Bob Coy on a national Christian cable channel, for instance), but those are not listed. The list risks becoming too large and a list for list's sake. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that if you were to ask, there would be lots of people who know too. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think that given what is said on their own Web sites, it appears that the Calvary Chapel and The River Christian Fellowship/CSN have severed ties. Nothing further needs to be said about it (there are a multitude of perspectives on why two parties break up, and like you said, gossip is not for a Wikipedia article). I would not normally mention former affiliates, but because CSN is so large (365 affiliates), that is probably worth mentioning. I understand the concerns of indiscriminate lists, but we're not talking individual stations-- this is a nationwide network founded by a Calvary Chapel. I'm going to add it as a footnote below, and separate from, the list. --J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel is a cult and they weave a thread of truth to disguise themselves but clearly they do not measure up to the Biblical standard. This article needs to tell the bad, the ugly, and the evil of this organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.199.80 (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That's funny. It doesn't stand any reasonable standard of proof. There is no cult-like behaviour that I have seen. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Same opinion - obviously he has an axe to grind - and that's being kind. As a Christian who has personnally walked into two confirmed cults while church shopping in new towns, no Calvary Chapel that I've ever attended (six and counting) has ever had any evidence of cults. Yes, I've attended CC's that have strong, opinionated pastors who allow little public disagreement with their decisions and could appear to outsiders as leading the church "in secret", but what denomination/church type is free of that? What I mostly see is overall love, welcoming friendship, and Bible-based teaching - hard to argue with those three... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckruschke (talk • contribs) 20:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have attended four CCs over my life and not a single cult experience. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel has been criticized because they themselves criticize others

Does anyone know why this was removed?

• "Calvary Chapel has been critized because they themselves criticize others. They say Calvary Chapel has attacked denominations, Seventh-day Adventists, Pentecostals, Catholics, Lutherans, and word of faith teachers. [1]"

There are many additional references for this position. Here's one where Chuck Smith & his group telling a caller to not talk to Calvinists. The caller is told to "back off a little bit" because Calvinists are "kind of like cultists" -- but wait, doesn't the Bible say something about fellowship with believers? Calvary's position is that Calvinists are cultists, not brothers. The reviewer identifies, "Isn't it the cults that tell people to avoid other people?" -- http://www.vimeo.com/6886977

For disclosure, I am not supporting Calvinism. I only have an issue with Chuck Smith & group saying that someone should "back away" from another Christian group. Sliceofmiami (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The charge that they "criticize others" can be said for all Christian denominations and for that matter any religious denomination. They all criticize one another! This isn't encyclopedic. Ltwin (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your position is not neutral. "All Christian denominations" do not denounce other Christian denominations. However, the non-neutral position isn't what is important. Verifiable references have been provided, to include Chuck Smith's own expose on how Calvinists are cultists. Even with your position, you don't believe that a blanket statement that Calvinists are "kind of like cultists" is significant coming from a preacher? Second, according to prior arguments, Calvary is not to be referred to as a denomination. Sliceofmiami (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sliceofmiami, your position is not neutral. I would dare say that your position is also uninformed. I would say that your position is outright biased against CC. Perhaps you need to read some first-hand CC sources rather than only reading sources who are anti-CC. I have never heard CC criticizing or denouncing any Christian denominations. So to say the least, it's not a common stance. I have heard Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics regularly state that they are the only true church. CC doesn't do that. I have heard some fundamentalist churches say the same thing about their way of practising the faith. And your undocumented statement is likely taken out-of-context. I have heard R. C. Sproul, a "reformed" (a.k.a Calvinist) pastor and theologian, and his fellow reformed pastors, be pretty cult-like in their adherence to the five points of Calvinism. That doesn't stop me from considering him to be a good teacher.

For the record, I have never been a member of a CC church. As you can see from my talk page, I have aligned myself with an Anabaptist denomination. I have been a member of two Lutheran congregations, an Anglican congregation, and most recently a Fellowship Baptist congregation. My only association with CC is that I have attended a service on five different occasions over my life, and an acquaintance of mine is a pastor of a CC. So what is your relationship to CC? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A few notes. "Here's one where Chuck Smith & his group telling a caller to not talk to Calvinists." Incorrect; the exact statement made was that they "I wouldn't necessarily recommend arguing with [this person]" (emphasis added). Also, it wasn't Chuck Smith that made the statement about cultists, it was someone named Brian.

Additionally, from "What Calvary Chapel Teaches" (What We Do Not Believe chapter) at http://biblefacts.org/church/WCCT.pdf: "At Calvary Chapel, we reject some popular doctrines of some Christian groups because we believe them to be in error Scripturally. This does not mean that we will not fellowship with those holding these views, it simply means that such views are outside the boundaries of what constitutes a Calvary Chapel church." (emphasis added) 66.177.182.13 (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Walter, actually, that is not my quote. It is from a history page on this Calvary page. I was wondering why it was removed. In terms of church membership, you have never even been invited to become a member of a CC church. CC doesn't accept memberships. Did you happen to listen to the video? Sliceofmiami (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This quote was removed because someone felt like it didn't apply to their church -- "I removed the following "Calvary Chapel itself is highly critical of other churches, and sometimes inherits the reputation as trying to portray themselves as the "one true church". I attend Calvary Chapel, and while it is agreeable that we do look down upon churches with false doctrines (especially prosperity gospel churches), I don't recognize "one true church" as a valid statement. Someone is obviously sabotaging this entry because they disagree with CC. ~~Iamvery~~" Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"One true church" might refer to the Church universal, a.k.a. Church militant and church triumphant. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not sure. I'm not up on what "Iamvery" identified. The problem was that it was removed because "Iamvery" didn't feel like he recognized the referenced statement as true. The statement or something similar should be reinserted in the article, with the references cited of course. Sliceofmiami (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this video reference and Chuck Smith's position about Calvinists (that Chuck Smith believes Calvinists are "kind of like cultists") should be in the Doctrine area, since someone else has an unreferenced quote about CC "striking a balance" between Calvinism and Arminianism. Sliceofmiami (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There are enough quotes on this subject that it's not possible to deny it. Calvary Chapel has declared themselves the church of Philadelphia and the other churches the church of Laodicea. That is to say other churches are apostate and they preserve the truth. http://calvarychapel.pbworks.com/w/page/13146594/CC-attacks-other-churches

Unfortunately a blog is not considered to be a reliable source. Please find some reliable sources. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Walter, the page I listed is not a BLOG, it is a Wiki page and it lists the sources which are directly from Larry Taylor former head of Calvary Chapel Bible College. If Wiki pages and direct quotes from the source are not sufficient, then what is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.251.204 (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiki pages are are not considered to be reliable sources either. Open wikis even less so. See the reliable sources page for what is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

See also?

In addition to what was written in the revert comment about removing The Vineyard from the See also section, the guideline indicates "However, whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Indeed, a good article might not require a 'See also' section at all.". To be fair, I'm not sure what asking people to also check-out Association of Vineyard Churches would assist in having people understand more about Calvary Chapel. If the Catholic Church article had a See also section, would you envisage including a link to Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed churches, etc.? It makes some sense to have a link back from Association of Vineyard Churches to CC, or at least to Wimber or Lonnie Frisbee and thereby circuitously to this article. It would be good to know what reasons the information needs to be in both sections. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Good points, Walter. The reason I expect it was originally in the See Also is because the two grew up as sister churches. The reason I'd think it should still be there is because the article is pretty big. Someone may read the first paragraph, and immediately refer to the "see also" section, to find out what kind of affiliations the article holds. For example, someone may be from a Vineyard church. When they see the See Also note, it may result in them wanting to read the remaining parts of the article. I don't see the value in removing it -- removing it does not seem to improve the article, or improve the opportunity for the reader -- and I see theoretical value in leaving it. However, not a sword I wish to fall on. LtWin removed it twice, so he feels pretty strongly about it. Sliceofmiami (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What I feel strongly about is keeping lists to a minimum. They have a tendancy to become huge lists of redundancy. The purpose of a See also section is to say "Hey, these subjects that are not in the article's main body could also be informative". Since the Vineyard is already mentioned in the main body of the article, it takes the also out of the see. See WP:See also. Ltwin (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "LtWin removed it twice". For the sake of precision, I think I deleted it once and Ltwin deleted it once after it had been put back. I was not aware of the see also policy but once made aware of it, it made sense to remove it. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There's more than a sister church relationship between CC and the Vineyard. John Wimber was a Calvary Chapel pastor. The root church of the Vineyard is Anaheim Vineyard which was Calvary Chapel of Yorba Linda until it was removed by Chuck Smith. This is well documented in John Wimber's widow's book which describes how they were removed from CC by Chuck Smith personally due to differences in manifestations of spiritual gifts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.251.204 (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. They are not sister churches any more than The Lutheran church is a sister church to the Catholic church. Not only is the theology different on points such as charismatic gifts and the role of scripture to govern, but there are many other fundamental differences. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Gorlitz, I have to disagree. From what I've read, they do seem to be awfully (historically) close. It doesn't matter if their doctrines are now different, the fact is that many of the original Vineyard churches were under the Calvary banner. Of course, the Catholic Church's wouldn't need to mention every offshoot, but its history section would mention the Protestant Reformation. Ltwin (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The differences between CC and the Vineyard are not evidence they are not related, but rather the reason for the division that happened originally. Plus, the divisions can't be described accurately as "theological" but one of praxis. The split between CC and the Vineyard mentioned happened about 30 years ago. There's no reason that both groups should not have morphed with time. It is undeniable that many original Vineyard churches were Calvary Chapels which took a variant view of the charismatic gifts from Chuck Smith's view. The early Calvary Chapel (CCCM) had a wider variety of spiritual gifts than more recent times. In particular, Youth Concerts in the 1970s practiced baptism in the Holy Spirit, as an example at "afterglows". Further evidence was the circumstances surrounding the removal of Lonnie Frisbee from Calvary Chapel and (incidentally) his absorption into the Vineyard. Frisbee was more Pentecostal than Smith but there's always been cross-pollination between the two groups. Of the pastors who left CC and went to the Vineyard, last time I looked all had returned to CC except John McClure (Vineyard Newport Beach). The two churches clearly accept each other's ordination as an example of the relationship.--24.144.251.204 (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)MTM

Citing sources

I understand why the anonymous editor is removing refs to a radio programme or audio archive, it's because it's not WP:V. When we cite a book, we give a page number so that editors don't have to read the entire tome to determine if the citation is correct or not. Similarly, a radio programme must be cited correctly so that the reference can be found correctly. Wikipedia:Citation templates has the list of citation templates including {{cite episode}}.

My talk page is not the correct place to discuss issues related to this article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Then change it the way it needs to be, Gorlitz. Do your part in making this page not so POV. Sliceofmiami (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

How can this page be protected against IP user editing? We've had enough disagreements without a dynamic IP address contributing to additional issues. By the way, Walter, I just looked at the web page you referenced, and it says that the reference only needs to be "cite video" to be correct. That certainly didn't warrant a removal. Sliceofmiami (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You would need to make a request on the admin pages to 1) prove that it has been under constant attack from vandals, which it hasn't, 2) you would need to indicate why it needs to be protected, and 3) for how long. If you can't make a case, it wouldn't be protected or semi-protected. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I just changed it with the cite video reference. Please update as required. It is the first time I've been forced to do something like that. Let's see if the IP user will roam somewhere else.

In terms of the IP user, I noticed a few high traffic pages were protected against anonymous postings. It really doesn't stop anything, since the IP user could just make a single use account to change whatever. The same user changed another page, and unfortunately never gives reasons for the changes. I posted a note on the IP talk page, but the person never acknowledged the request. Now he seems to be using a new IP address -- don't you love dynamic addressing... Sliceofmiami (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This page is neither high-traffic nor is it important. We can patrol the pages adequately. The anonymous editor just removed the entire section on the return of Christ and I reverted. Don't bother placing warnings. The IP addresses are different with each edit.

• 66.177.182.* are Comcast Cable in Jacksonville, Florida.

This is the editor who mostly knows the rules of Wikipedia and enforces them. The following also made some edits recently as well.

• 75.36.71.91 AT&T DSL in Westminster, California.
• 83.67.91.52 Freedom to Surf DSL in London, England.

Regardless, the page doesn't need semi-protection unless it starts to happen regularly. You can always apply to have it protected and let the admins decide. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the IP editor that the souces provided are inadequate - including the .ra link. We don't allow cites to YouTube, this is even worse. I have asked for additional input at WP:BLPN. CIreland (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

CIreland, the link is to a radio broadcast with Chuck Smith's voice. It doesn't matter where radio broadcast is stored. If you wish to put it on a different server, then download it and put it on a different server. Sliceofmiami (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not the point at all, if your a freelance journalist then fine but that is not what wikipedia editors do, we report the reliable reports of notable events. It also does totally matter where it is stored and who stored it. Sometimes I tire of such issues, get the strongest reliable citations you can find to support your desired additions with rubbish claims and suchlike citations forget about it. The living subjects that we add content to are people that we respect and protect using quality control such as this. As I say often...get yourself a blog where you can add what ever you want and pay your own libel defamation lawyers.Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, you should not be " respecting and protecting" the pages of people on wiki. ("Respect denotes both a positive feeling of esteem for a person or other entity, and also specific actions and conduct representative of that esteem.") Your goal on wiki should be to provide adequately sourced neutral material. Sounds like you are not able to be neutral. Good thing we can't vote people off the island. Sliceofmiami (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Calvinism/Arminianism

The section says nothing about what Calvary Chapel itself believes, but only what Chuck Smith has written about. The Calvary Chapel website says that it is against emphasizing doctrinal differences, and claims it itself is not a denomination. Calvary Chapel does not take a position on Calvinism or Arminianism, but Chuck Smith has written on these things. There is a difference if it is true that the individual churches have freedom to have varied beliefs on these things. Could this be clarified in the article? Kristamaranatha (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is since there is no such thing as Calvary Chapel apart from Chuck Smith. Smith's published opinion on Calvinism is therefore the stand of Calvary Chapel. Chuck Smith does take a clear position against Calvinism and has removed pastors from Calvary Chapel because they were/are Calvinists. There were also purges at the Bible College removing Calvinists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.251.204 (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

new section. Same old nonsense

First, you just copied and pasted a large section from http://www.rickross.com/reference/calvary/calvary5.html and that's copyright violation, even if you put it into quotes (which you didn't close). Second, you start the section by heading it Cult like practices (which again should read "Cult-like practices" and all of the experts deny they're cult-like. That's horribly biased and I slice of miami should stop pushing their own agenda on this group. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC) And then there's the lack of WP:V in the article which is self-published. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Walter, I did not actually add anything to the article that didn't already exist. Someone had put semi-quotes in the wiki article, but took the information out of context. I just tried to fix the invalid quoted material. Second, I tried to fix what was a very difficult to read "Criticisms" section by breaking it up into sub sections. The article as it read was difficult to follow. It appeared that someone was trying to spin, but spin very poorly. I think you should try to make the article a little more unbiased (and with an understanding that some of the experts claim "they're" cult-like) instead of pushing your own agenda... and relax a little. Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: I did rename the "cult like practices" section on behalf of you. Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I recognize now what happened and I really shouldn't be blaming you. I haven't particularly liked the section. It's labelled "cult-like" and the accusation isn't really supported in the section nor is it appropriate for the group. The copyvio did have to be removed though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate your honesty and your apology. Thanks, Walter. Blessings to you tonight... Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Not Accurate, Either

I realize the primary objection in these articles is that it isn't neutral, but it is also simply inaccurate in its descriptions of other denominations and Christian movements. For instance, the article suggests that Calvary Chapel, unlike fundamentalists, believe in spiritual gifts. Oddly, I have been a member of a fundamentalist church for years, and know with certainty that there are many fundamentalist groups who do believe in spiritual gifts. This is not a neutrality issue--this is basic misinformation or ignorance on part of the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.31.167.68 (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Pentecostals are fundamentalist and encourage spiritual gifts. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this distinction comes from CC literature, wherein "striking a middle ground" between fundamentalism and charismatic practices is advanced as a distinctive. It has always been a poor point of comparison. I think what they have in mind is their notion that 1950s style fundamentalism was "legalistic" and "spiritually dead" and charismatic practices involved emphases that were doctrinally suspicious. So they hoped to strike some sort of balance of doctrinally correct fundamentalism and spiritually alive, but moderate charismatic faith. But unless one takes a CC-centric view, the distinction stops making much sense. It goes back to the same old issue for this article. It is mostly written in CC-centric language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.180.41 (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. In some sense there is truth to the statement. When Pentecostalism began, fundamentalists were cessationist Christians and they really were hostile to the manifestational gifts that are prominent within Pentecostalism. Pentecostals are fundamentalist but beliefs in spiritual gifts separated them for at least the early part of the movement's existence. Today, that is not the case as Pentecostal beliefs have found more acceptance and tolerance within the Christian scene. Ltwin (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Escatology

I'd like to move the Smith 9/11 line from practices into escatology and delete the reference to Richard Abanes and the 80's rapture information because this appears to be redundant. Just the LA times quote should suffice. Any objections?

The material on Smith and 9/11 has been part of the body of this article for a long time now. It is well sourced and refers to the post-911 context of Bible prophesy which marks an historically significant turn in pre-millennial speculations about the end times. Removing the material without comment is not an accepted editing practice in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvanduyse (talk • contribs) 00:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It was moved and redacted. It's just in a different section. As for how long something is in an article...that's no guarantee that it's good material and can't stand a good edit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. And to that end, I removed the sentence that referred to Richard Abanes and the 81 rapture since it is covered under eschatology. My motivation for removing it is that the first two sentences now seem redundant in the article. For what it's worth, I had written both sentences originally. They are both accurate. But the first couple of sentences don't seem to add anything.Don Van Duyse (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up some of the material in the criticisms section

Years ago, I began a process of introducing some of the more multi-facaceted, non-CC, and sometimes critically oriented sources to this article. When I made reference to "group think" which is sourced to comments on the Rick Ross web site, this was when the article contained little non-cc material. At this point, although I wrote it (again, for what that's worth) I think the reference to group think is redundant. Another editor added a better reference to Rick Ross in the Sonoma County Independent which had some nice, balanced quotes for different sources within that article. Also, other editors developed material about the moses model and accountability. I think the "goup think" issue is more clearly addressed and better sourced in the Rick Ross and Moses model references before and after it. I favor removing the "group think" reference because it it redundant now. Also, I think the reference to "Calvanist critics" always had undo weight. Sure, some guy on a web site had a calvanist criticism of Calvary Chapel. But we could pile up web-based criticisms of this type from all kinds of sources and it wouldn't add up to anything substantial. I think in an odd way the "calvanist critics" section was an effort at self-flattery by CC-promoting/defending editors who wanted to prove that CC "strikes the right balance" as is noted in their promotional literature ala Chuck Smith. I propose removing the Calvinist critics material on the ground that it presents a very distorted sense of theological criticisms that are made in regards to Calvary Chapel. Better sourced criticisms focus more on eschatology. CCs "Lack of Calvanist doctrine" is a red herring. It is sourced to a blog or web site. Time to remove it.Don Van Duyse (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with your edits and rationale. I never really liked some of those criticisms but could not fashion an appropriate counter. You put it very nicely. 66.177.182.247 (talk) 01:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel's Claim to be a Movement

Calvary Chapel is not a movement. Movements span denominations. The "Charismatic Movement" has crossed all denominational bounds from Catholic, to Anglican, etc. Calvary Chapel's music has crossed denominational boundaries, but Calvary Chapel itself has not. Someone could say they are a Charismatic Catholic, for instance, but not a Calvary Chapel Catholic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.251.204 (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There are also movements within denominations like a "back to the Bible" movement where some parts of a denomination wish to move the larger body towards some specific goal like bringing the denomination "back to the Bible". That does not fit the way CC wants to use the word movement.

Fellowship is a weaker word but it does imply something like shared communion. Since CCs practice open communion allowing anyone who wants to take communion to take communion this definition also fails. In a real sense, there's no such thing as Calvary Chapel as a church, per se. A local church is not affiliated with Calvary Chapel, only the pastor has that affiliation. He can call his church a Calvary Chapel since he is recognized by Chuck Smith who is the one who determines if a church is a Calvary Chapel or not. Chuck Smith has tried various means of controlling who is and who is not affiliated, in particular, their use of the CCoF as the certifying agency. The problem is largely one of legal responsibility and the resulting liability that falls to Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa (his church). Also relevant is the question of ordination. In particular, how is the local pastor ordained? Chuck Smith ordained most of the first generation of CC pastors and they have ordained others. This is largely a denominational function although the church at large often recognizes the ordination of pastors from different denominations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.251.204 (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Reason for "introducing some of the more multi-facaceted, non-CC, and sometimes critically oriented sources"?

I guess this is just a comment, but it somewhat makes me wonder about an editor who is actively attempting to add critical references and information into a Wikipedia article. Sounds like someone with an axe to grind - doesn't it? Whether it's all good and non-biased, is this the purpose of some authors while adding content to the Christian-oriented Wikipedia pages that we NEED "to show balance" by finding defamative references/info to introduce?

Again I guess this is just a general comment and not necessarily critical of the author who wrote these words (as his discussion in the Talk section is perfectly legit and logical) - it just seems like Christian pages on Wikipedia are drenched with comments like "nobody really believes this crap" (attached to a reference from left-leaning newspaper or psychology magazine) while pages of other religeons are closely protected against these types of edits. While reading through what edits are and are not approved on pages that I read, it appears that articles that are termed "editorials" are commonly bounced as being biased - why are opinion pieces in papers and magazine that paint Christianity in a negative tone allowed when they have the same inherent bias (there is no Jesus or Christian God). Wikipedia wouldn't allow note on Brett Favre's page to the effect "it is obvious that by playing in 2010 he stayed in the NFL one year too many because he's been hurt a lot and generally played bad" - so an editor's first question would be "although this MAYBE true, it's obvious too whom" and he'd kill it? However in a similar vein, newsprint authors who convict Calvary Chapel of being a cult or into "group think" rarely have any evidence beyond their probably biased opinions, but these references are considered legitmate CC criticsm to be considered for inclusion. Huh?!?!

Probably a broad-brushed comments and not necessarily properly sourced, but there it is. Obviously this isn't the place for a global discussion on how "the world" treats Christianity so maybe I'm just venting, but I think the original observation is legitimate so take it for what it's worth (which is probably very little). Ckruschke (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Ckruschke

Okay, I'll bite. To be balanced, the article probably did need to include other viewpoints about the movement. I'm biased that it is a great movement but it is not perfect, nor is any other. In Dvanduyse's defense, his additions were fair, balanced, and properly sourced (e.g. not blogs or hate sites), unlike many other editors that have visited with a clear axe to grind. Additionally, he worked hard toward consensus, sometimes enduring difficult reverts and edits by myself and others. 71.23.13.152 (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I also pointed out that his arguments were valid - just that his original pretence was "interesting". If I want to have my insertions kept and read and be valuable, I need to learn to differ to others when in the heat of the moment I can allow opinion to sway. Thanks for the listen. Ckruschke (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Time to archive?

I'd like to suggest that the talk be archived. I'd do it but I don't know how and as an IP editor I suspect I don't have the privilege. 71.23.13.152 (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggested it earlier and was shot-down (I think it was here). There are a few archive bots that can do it automatically. Unless there are other objections, I will add the commands by the weekend. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct. I remember your earlier suggestion and that it was shot down, but the user who shot it down no longer seems to be editing here and I can only AFG on the reasonings behind it. 71.23.13.152 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC).

Thanks, Walter. 66.177.182.247 (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)