Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Charismatic Christianity

Mediation on Talk:Calvary Chapel

There's an informal mediation taking place on Talk:Calvary Chapel, which some folk might like to chime in on. It's basically a dispute over whether Calvary Chapel can be considered part of this project, and someone keeps removing the template. If you feel like adding your 2c-worth, go ahead. David L Rattigan 08:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest a new flavor of tag? If someone at CC is bothered by a tag that indicates that CC is Charismatic/Pentecostal, and the reason for tagging their article is that they used to be (or came out of, etc), then perhaps a different tag may be more acceptable to them? DougJoseph 02:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recruitment drive: Getting participants in this project

This is the first time I've done a project, so I'm a bit green when it comes to getting participants. There are only a handful at the moment. I will have a look at what the policies and guidelines say about recruiting for projects, but if anyone else has suggestions how we can get others involved, please share! David L Rattigan 08:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, would love to get involved. I am a charismatic Christian, and having been involved with both large and small charismatic churches and having studied the subject, I may be of some use to you. Just tell me what I can do for you, and I'll try and do it. --Sirwilliam 04:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy also to help out Mike Orchard 09:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions to Main Project Page

Please feel free to play around with the main project page. I have been making a few additions to clarify the scope of the project etc, but I'm sure there are others who could help to hone the particulars. David L Rattigan 09:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind that I made a minor edit - . . . "but an acknowledgement that they have have important features in common with, or find their roots in, a form of charismatic Christianity." I just removed the doubled 'have'. Thelma Bowlen 02:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A word about bias

I'd like to see as many folk from as many different perspectives as possible come on board with this project. One thing I have learned from seeing discussion pages on charismatic topics is that there is a lot of controversy over POV and people writing articles "with an agenda".

I freely admit that I am an ex-charismatic (and ex-evangelical) with severe reservations about the charismatic movement and Pentecostalism in general. But I have started this project because I have an interest in charismatic Christianity as a historic and contemporary phenomenon, not because I have an axe to grind.

As new contributors come on board, I think it is important that editors give each other the benefit of the doubt when it comes to accusations of injecting bias into the articles (with the exception of clear-cut propaganda etc). Just because someone has a personal bias, doesn't mean they can't override that and produce an objective article.

Just wanted to mention that because if the 'talk' history of some of the existing articles is anything to go by, it could become an issue. David L Rattigan 22:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heya... Thought I'd join. For the record, I'm a pentecostal, though I'd probably put myself more in the "classical" camp, rather than the "anything-goes" attitude that seems to permeate some sections of the pentecostal/charismatic movement today. I'm not one for meandering around the articles looking for things to do, but if you assign me a task, I'm happy to do it. I have pretty broad research interests, so fire away. Regards, Jaems 03:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Appreciate what you're doing tagging talk pages with the WikiProject template. That is the most useful thing at this stage. My approach at this stage is to start with one article and follow links to related articles and so on, just to get as many relevant articles as possible tagged. Making a note of gaps (ie requests for new articles) would also be good at this stage. There's a list on the main project page for that. Cheers. David L Rattigan 11:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

We used to have an extensive article on criticism of the Charismatic and Pentecostal movements, but this was deleted, for various reasons. However, now the section on criticism in Charismatic movement is a tiny two paragraph section (Charismatic_movement#Criticism_of_the_movement). Nonetheless, it would be useful to salvage material from the old deleted article, making sure it's NPOV, of course. The old article can be found here. — Matt Crypto 18:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Matt. Please sign up as a member of the project if you think you can contribute something.

As I've been tagging some articles with the project template, I can see this is a huge task. Many articles on crucial topics are poorly written and often from a non-NPOV. Many of them are simply vehicles for grossly biased, unverified information and have gone unchecked. There is some major clean-up to be done. David L Rattigan 22:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of project

Wasn't sure how to approach this or where to say it...but be being bold(ish).....

Although I appreciate the desire to have a project that encompasses all possible areas that have, or may of had at some stage in history, a connection with Charismatic or Pentecostal Christianity is there not a danger that

1. the project will be submerged into endless controversy if it is going to include anything that does not 'self identify' as either as being linked to Pentecostalism or the Charismatic Movement.

2. it will expand to include any form of Christianity that deviates slightly from 'mainline' versions - in which case perhaps the Project needs to be called something else (unorthodox christianity?) - perhaps focussing on the definition of what is in scope will prevent too many conflicts.

3. the focus will move towards any form of charismatic behaviour, as defined by the usual use of the word i.e. 'human personalities of magnetic charm / influential communication / persuasion abilities / behaviour) by any one associated with christianity.

Would it not be better to focus on an alternative main subject - possibly the theology, belief and consistent practices rather than the short term excesses seen at the start of some of the movements. I know this could also be difficult as the distinction in many cases is not one of the validity or availability of the gifts of the Spirit - but the encouragement, in some cases with subsequent abuse, for them to be part of everyday practice.

I appreciate that distinctions between groups can be hard to make but if the scope is too wide then all that will happen is a continual repitition of who's in and who's out as has been continuing between theologians etc over the last century - see the rather poor (POV) article on New religious movement

Although I can mainly only speak regarding European practice, and recognise the importance of maintaining both a historical and a current day perspective, it may be POV to describe Pentecostal churches as outside the 'mainstream' as evidenced by their inclusion in many ecumenical bodies such as the 'Evangelical Alliance' and 'Churches Together'.

Trying to be useful, Johnmarkh 18:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Johnmarkh

Thanks for your thoughts, Johnmarkh. I'll address them point-by-point, as I think for the most part your concerns are unfounded.

I don't think self-identification should be the key criterion. After all, a group's decision to accept or reject a label is just as much a POV as someone else's decision to impose that label on them. I think what the project needs is a clear definition of what we mean by "charismatic" in a wider context.
There's no reason why it will expand to cover anything not mainstream. First, charismatic Christianity is no longer out of the mainstream. Second, if we have a definition of "charismatic", then there's a clear criterion for which groups to include. Third, charismatic Christianity traditionally remains within orthodoxy (ie on core, historic doctrines such as Scripture, the Trinity, the Atonement etc).
The meaning of "charismatic" you give here is a different meaning that has no necessary connection to "charismatic" in this context, which is a word deriving from the biblical word "charismata", referring to what is usually translated "[spiritual] gifts". There is no reason why the two should be confused.

Your concerns have been helpful, though, as it does highlight the need for us to work on a definition of "Charismatic Christianity". David L Rattigan 20:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defining "Charismatic Christianity"

Following on from Johnmarkh's concerns, I think we should attempt to define what we mean by "Charismatic Christianity". It is certainly broader than the Charismatic movement and Pentecostalism, as it encompasses any form of Christianity that grants a place to the so-called "charismatic" gifts (the extraordinary gifts of tongues, prophecy, healing etc) in the spiritual life of the believer and the Church.

That's just a rough definition. Any thoughts on this? David L Rattigan 20:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the term is best defined based on the two words it comprises. We should not put the project template on pages where it is a shock to the existing editors, and sticking close to the standard definitions of the words is the best way to do that. (As for those groups that originated in charismatic Christianity but have diverged, we might put regular or a wiki comment  immediately after the project template on the talk page, with the comment explaining the origination.

So for "Christianity" the focus should be orthodox Christianity. Of course, in charistmatic christianity as in any broad Christian movement, some have clearly slipped outside orthodoxy and even more have been said by other Christians to have done so. To the extent such criticism is significant, it should be noted as per the general standards on handling POV criticism.

For "Charismatic", I would suggest instead of "grants a place" something more like "gives a priority or emphasis to" the charismata. Even cessationist Christians grant a place to the spiritual gifts, it is just a place that has a temporal boundary ending centuries ago. Of course, there will be grey areas as to whether the gifts are priorized or emphasized.

We should prioritize on topics that are important to charismatic Christianity and clearly meet each of the above definitions. We would probably cover any important topic that meets one but is in the grey zone on another. An example of such a topic is a denomination that clearly originated as Christian and charismatic but developed to be clearly non-orthodox. On the other hand, a sect that occasionally mentioned the spiritual gifts and was clearly non-orthodox for its entire existence would be outside the bounds (grey on one, wrong on the other.) We may have to have a few discussions about the grey zones before the contributors to this project reach a consensus. If we don't have consensus and have enough participants later , we can always have sub to-do lists for things in the grey zones. GRBerry 21:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The defintion 'gives priority or emphasis to' is possibly a little too narrow, there are Pentecostal organisations where the gifts have a place but where balance and proportionality are also important. The definition would also remove Calvary Chapel as they 'grant a place' but do not 'give priority' to the gifts. As Chuck Smith was originaly ordained in and subsequently left a Pentecostal Denomination, became involved in/around the Jesus movement and subsequently formed the CC 'movement' the picture would not be complete without some method of involving or referring to them. Johnmarkh 19:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Calvary Chapel at least fits as a "relative" of the charismatic movement, and relevant to the subject historically.

"Orthodox" is also problematic, as GR Berry mentioned. Oneness Pentecostalism, for example, is non-orthodox on the doctrine of the Trinity, and yet it is a major player in worldwide charismatic Christianity. David L Rattigan 15:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe David is very close to the mark in his definition of charismatic. First, for our purpose here the term must be defined by its popular usage, not its biblical usage. Second, any belief or practice that is common to both sides of the charismatic / non-charismatic divide cannot be used as a distinguishing mark of "charismatic." This would include the continuation of the gift of prophecy, as it is accepted as a modern gift by the non-charismatic John MacArthur, although defined differently than by many charismatics.

There is, in my opinion, a very simple dividing line in the way that charismatic is defined by common usage, although this is not necessarily done consciously. The distinction is that charismatics accept the gifts of tongues, interpretation, miracles, and healing as extant in the modern church as a whole. (as for apostleship, there are some scholars who believe this to be a calling and not a "spiritual gift," i.e. Jack Deere and Samuel Storms.) All other gifts are at least sometimes defined in a non-supernatural manner. These four gifts, in my experience, are never defined naturally, and are never accepted by churches who call themselves non-charismatic. There are also no churches or individuals (that I know of) who who call themselves charismatic while denying the continuation of these four gifts.

I also think David is correct that these churches only have to "give a place to" these gifts to be considered charismatic. A church that accepts these gifts but tries to minimalize their importance might be called "marginally" or "mildly" charismatic, but they would never be called non-charismatic. Aurelian G. 19:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration? Nominations, please

Perhaps we could start working on our first collaboration? I nominate the following:

They are all existing articles that could do with clean-up and expansion. I see Paddles is already working on Spiritual gifts, so maybe we could join him in that.

David L Rattigan 15:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bible study

I welcome and encourage contributors to this project to help expand Bible study (Christian). This article suffers from a lack of relevent view points, and a lack of information in general. Any help would be appreicated. Good luck, and thanks!--Andrew c 14:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Charismatic Renewal Acronym

I have always heard the Catholic Charismatic Renewal referred to as CCRS Catholic Charismatic Renewal Service but a search for CCRS leads to Catholic Certificate in Religious Studies. Perhaps there should be a disambiguation page or is it enough to remove the word service from Catholic Charismatic Renewal and thereby distinguish them as CCR and CCRS?--Silverclodhopper 14:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Charismatic Christianity WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one (new) for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist like this one automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 04:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: "Oneness_Pentecostal", "Jesus-Name_doctrine" and network of Oneness articles in general

Hello all. I just found this project group, and signed up. I'm a life-long Oneness Pentecostal, currently pastoring (4th year), a preacher for 20+ years.

Several months ago I tackled trying to get inaccuracies and non-NPOV content cleared out -- and quality raised for -- the "Jesus-Name_doctrine" article. It is not yet 100%, but we're requesting comments on it.

Recently (last couple of weeks or so), I began attempting to do the same with the "Oneness_Pentecostal" article. Inaccuracies and non-NPOV content abound. It also is very lengthy, somewhat redundant, and a bit convoluted (natural results of the Wiki editing process with multiple editors). I started at the top and have now worked my way down to the "Trinitarian Interpretation" section, which I have not even touched. I am a little hesitant to tackle it for the sheer probability of being viewed as having an agenda, and for (honestly) lack of time and lack of zeal on that portion. But it deserves a fair counterbalance. We already have a lengthy "Contrast" section and it seems the "Trinitarian Interpretation" section should be merged into it, but that would make it lengthier still. The "Trinitarian Interpretation" section is plagued with typographical errors, etc. I will plod on, but I would greatly appreciate some level-headed criticism, and would _really_ appreciate some articulate assistance, especially with the "Trinitarian Interpretation" section. Much of the article beyond that point sorely needs edited, and I plan to get to it as time allows.

I understand there is also a "Oneness" article, but I have not even looked at it yet. I am having to take these things one at a time.

I am requesting comments about the whole network of "Oneness related" articles, too, because they've "grown up" from stubs, with little or no organization structure, and it all seems to be a little redundant, and somewhat disorganized. I and one other editor requested a merge in one place ("Jesus-Name_doctrine" -> "Oneness_Pentecostal") with no feedback from other editors. Any advice is welcome! :) DougJoseph 02:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Oneness Pentecostal Talk page I have added some comments of a historical nature to address what appears a void among some regarding Second Century Christianity.

Being new to this process I'm still not sure how we contact each other or compare notes and efforts. On the Oneness Pentecostal Talk page I am simply noted as BaB and I took the liberty of dating my remarks. Gilariverrider 6 September 2006 18:17PST I'm not sure how to simply tag a signature and time stamp?

If the participation of others from the project is desired, talk here. If you want to talk to other editors of a specific article (a good idea also, as it will pick up other editors involved with the article but not the project, use the article's Talk page, found at the discussion tab atop the screen when viewing the article.)

To suggest a merge, there are templates that can be added to the pages. Use {{merge}} on both pages if you think they should be together but aren't too sure where, or {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} if you know which title should be the final page. Also describe the reasoning on both Talk pages (though on one you can just say "See [[Talk:Other Page#Suggested Merge]]". If you do this, people watching either page will see the change and may comment. It also puts them in Category:Articles to be merged, but last I knew the backlog there was roughly 10,000 articles, so don't expect much from that. If you get affirmative feedback or no feedback for a week or two, then go ahead and do the merge. The instructions for merging are at Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. This also contains the primary guidance on when to merge and how to do it. Finally, because of the requirements of the WP:GFDL, the page eliminated should become a redirect to the merged content. GRBerry 01:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed at Pentecostal Mission

First attempt was copyvio, rewrite in progress at Pentecostal Mission/Temp, but the contributors are not used to write in the encyclopedic style. --Pjacobi 14:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Sources to be Digested and Used

I just found a pair of related reliable sources that should be digested and used as appropriate. The one I found first was a New York Times article entitled Pentecostal and Charismatic Groups Growing. It is about the results of a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, a summary of which can be found at http://pewforum.org/surveys/pentecostal/. The full survey is available (as a 233 page PDF file) from that link. I won't have time to read, digest, and use for a week or two, but I'm pointing it out in case anyone can use these source before I do. GRBerry 13:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1st hand experience is needed

Movember 2006 - Having been a "charismatic" since 1968 I find that most people who discuss it know almost nothing about it personally, hence it is opinion and little else. Most people would not discuss Nepal who had not been either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Headguerilla (talk • contribs) 13:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shepherding Movement

I'm not sure the entire scope of the charismatic christianity tag that you all are trying to acheive, but would tagging pages of churches that have been influenced by this movement be ok? I'm working on a page for a specific group and noticed that it was listed on the shepherding movement page. I also noticed, however, that the shepherding movement page was relatively unsourced. It might need some cleanup. My main question is if you want to expand the tag to churches listed in the article as well? --Mfpantst 16:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir:

I am new at wiki so may mess up, but i have a question. I was looking up shepherding and I noticed someone was trying to get notable christian or charimatic ministers removed from wikipedia. An example is Don Basham who has at least 16 book published, and must have sold in the millions. I think other notable christian minister also have already been removed. Is some biased person doing this? I don't know how to search it out

Nonmaus 01:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)nonmaus[reply]

Category:Religious leaders

The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at Category talk:Religious leaders#Organization proposal, and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Badbilltucker 22:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Religion

The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus nominated for Article Improvement Drive

I recently found that our article on Jesus is the first page that appears when anyone does a Google search of the subject. It is currently, regrettably, only at GA status. On that basis, I would request any individuals who might be interested in helping to bring this article up to FA status to indicate their support for the article being chosen as the AID article at Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive#Jesus. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assemblies of God

The Assemblies of God article is drawing criticism and an indication of AFD nomination - see Talk:Assemblies of God Paul foord 05:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]