Talk:Local churches (affiliation)/Archive 1

A Biased Soapbox

I am sorry to see such an unprofessional biased soapbox is permitted to exist in Wikipedia. There are a series of controversial claims which can not be verified to be true or accurate or based on any local church published materials. Wikipedia should not become a chatboard, whereby those who are negative against the local churches get to paste their claims (i.e. on a soapbox). It seems that accuracy and unobjective posting on topics, is unexplainedly not being required here. Why not have chatboard pages for every group in wikipedia? then those who are negative can repost their "unsubstaniated, biased, personal interpretations". This kind of trash journalism serves only to degrade wikipedia. I am not clear why posting quotes from the local church publishedn materials is not required for each "controversial claim"?. Allowing potentential misinterpretations or biased opinions masquerading as facts, is shameful and certainly below the standard of a fact based presentation. If one removes the controversial claims/personal opinions then the major content surround lawsuits which each one can be objectively verified and reported on. Whether wikipedia wants to act as link post for Pro/Con websites, my question is are there such pro/con website references for other christian groups/denominations i.e the catholic church, if they have controvery pages as well then the it would seem fair to do likewise. I think for instance in the ruling of Harvest House it would be very beneficial to post the decision (properly referenced), to note that in fact the court could not rule on the controversial claim of the LSM or the plaintiff churches as being a cult, as a matter of law they could not express an opinion on such a definition. The major controversy I have is why these opinions masquerading as facts have been allowed to remain? As for merging this topic with the main page, it seems to me that garbage in garbage out principle dictates this should not be done.

I think it is wrong to say you are God in any way; to sue Christians for faith; engage in violent screaming and repetitive mantra which is neither reading nor prayer; defending calvinism the pride of believing in being premade for salvation whiles others premade for hell; teaching modalism that the Father is the Son and that the Godhead is a Person; designate one's organization as abiding in Biblical locality when the very existence of a central command associated with products for sale violates the work of apostles; altering Watchman Nee's writings is bearing false witness.

This article should be an encyclopaedic summary of what the local church is, NOT an apologetic or diatribe by persons with biased points of view. What matters is NOT what YOU believe...what matters is that the article is FACTUAL and NEUTRAL point of view. NO ONE in the local church ever uses the word "mantra" (which is Hindu) so using it is BIASED. NO ONE in the local church says that Witness Leee is part of the Trinity. No one engages in "violent screaming". What is prayer and what is NOT prayer is in the eye of the believer, not in your eye. Free will and freedom of thought means that the individual person has the right, not YOU, to decide if what they are doing is prayer or not. And if that sounds agnostic, fine. The local church never taught modalism. Predestination is a major tenet of Calvinism (which last I checked, was considered CHRISTIAN several centuries ago). Also, it is YOU, not the local church, that teach about HELL (a word not even in the Bible...the Greek word is "Hades"). The local church only teaches what the Bible says...that some were found with their names written in the Book of Life, and others not (see Revelation 22). Last I checked, no one said that the BAPTISTS weren't Christian because they had a BAPTIST BOOK STORE. The bottom line: your ranting and raving is a poor reflection of YOU, not the local church. If the local church is wrong, it would only be because all religion and belief is wrong, there is no God, and atheism is correct. But if there is a God, and the Bible is the basis for belief ("all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching") then I would surmise that the local church is among the most logically correct of all denominations. Last I checked, I couldn't find the Easter Bunny in the Bible. Oh wait, that's because its a 'pagan' fertility goddess (Ishtar). Hmmm...but if you choose to believe that, its up to you...→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 10:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

disputed article text and discussion

This warning was moved from the article and replaced with the standard boilerplate texts for NPOV dispute and accuracy dispute. Daniel Quinlan 07:59, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

Dear readers,

Note: The information on this page is biased. For more accurate information, please do some research yourself since much of the information below is based on the writings of Jim Moran (therefore it has not been experienced personally by one of the Wiki's contributors).

Pro: www.lsm.org, www.christianwebsites.org, www.contendingforthefaith.org

Against: Sites by Jim Moran, Daniel Azuma, Anton Hein, etc.

Please do not remove this announcement!

I removed some of the more POV passages, including weasel words like 'seeming' and blatent puff passages. It should be possible to write a sensible article about this movement without either canonising or demonising it. I'm going to remove the more purple passages again; please discuss why you think they should go back, if you do. DJ Clayworth 18:27, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please explain what facts are disputed. If none, then we can remove the notice. DJ Clayworth 18:39, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I recommend reinserting the accuracy dispute if there is, in fact, legitimate concern. For what its worth, Christian Websites hosts this site giving the history of the movement from a distinctly insider perspective:

The Lord's Recovery

If certain facts are still in dispute, even after verification, then it is certainly reasonable to update the page to match the facts. I simply do not have the energy to engage in an extended discussion as to whether or not such and such is actual history. The facts are there and can be researched by anyone who has the inclination to do so. I encourage concerned readers to make factual updates that increase content in the article, as opposed to simply removing factual information simply because it is in some way disagreeable.

As Daniel Quinlan points out in his user page:

"Many articles at Wikipedia have evolved into agenda vehicles and Wikipedia lacks the will and the technology to allow neutral authors to effectively overrule vocal minorities pushing various agendas."

Give the overall controversy surrounding this movement, I am concerned that any critical remarks about them will be regarded as non-NPOV, and thus edited out. To this end I had considered adding an entry Local Church controversy, however the same problems would arise with that page. The advantage of Wikipedia is in its online revision control system, so older edits of webpages remain available.

Further discussion points can be placed here, and I will try to remain attentive to these concerns in the future.

TheLocalChurch 21:54, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also, the talk: page serves as a good record for these things too. Now that you've put your concerns here, it's possible that if a problem arises in the future some editor will see them and know that the "NPOVing" might have an ulterior motive. If the article's text isn't currently under dispute, I think it might be best to just leave these warnings here on talk: as a safeguard against potential future problems for now. Bryan 06:58, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I dispute TheLocalChurch's use of the moniker "TheLocalChurch" as his/her user name. This user claims to have a NPOV on subject matter related to the Local Church, yet it is clear from the user's own statements that his/her position is not neutral on this matter and that he/she is not capable of separating personal grievances from objective description. The moniker "TheLocalChurch" is used by this person not in good faith, as it is misleading in that any reasonable person would assume that a person named "TheLocalChurch" writing on the topic of the "Local Church" would be a representative or authoritative source for the Local Church, which this person obviously is not. If you are having difficulty seeing my point of view on this, consider a person who is in subjective disagreement with the Methodist Church, yet publicly names himself "TheMethodist" and proceeds to subtley modify all Wikipedia articles to spin the Methodist Church in a negative light. Such activity would obviously be considered devious and unacceptable.

I also dispute much of the writing on TheLocalChurch's user page, which I understand is voluntarily off-limits to my redaction. For example, this person's justification for remaining anonymous is itself a subtle slandering of the Local Church. The implication in this user's justification for remaining anonymous is that Living Stream Ministry and the Local Church involve themselves in frivolous lawsuits in order to harass people who disagree with their beliefs and practices, and that this person does not want to be harassed by such frivolous lawsuits. The facts are quite the opposite: Living Stream Ministry and the Local Church have engaged in only three legal actions in their entire existence: one against Thomas Nelson publishers, et al, resulted in the defendants retracting the book and issuing a public apology; one against Spiritual Counterfeits Project, et al, resulted in an $11.9 million judgment against the defendants (with the judge awarding an extraordinay amount of punitive damages to the plaintiffs); and another against Harvest House Publishers, et al, that is ongoing, but is already looking to be a sound defeat for the defendants to the tune of about $136 million. Evidently, the United States government's judicial system would beg to differ with TheLocalChurch's implication that the Local Church and Living Stream Ministry involve themselves in frivolous lawsuits.

And so we must consider what the real motive is behind TheLocalChurch's insistence on remaining anonymous. I don't think this is Daniel Azuma, as he is not afraid to publish his criticism of the Local Church on the Internet. Neither is it Jim Moran, because he passed away last year. Could it be Anton Hein? Maybe. Anton Hein was convicted in the United States of child molestation and fled to another country, from whence he publishes his website that is critical of the Local Church. He would be motivated to remain anonymous on the Wikipedia in order to limit the damage a child molestation conviction would do to his credibility. TheLocalChurch, are you Anton Hein in hiding?

--Nathan w cheng 21:40, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

All who are truly interested in getting to the bottom of this, please, before you do anything more, read this: Libel Litigations Filed by the Local Churches. Thank you! --Nathan w cheng 22:21, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nathan,

You are certainly free to have your opinion on these matters! :) In fact, I would encourage you to express it because I value the freedom of speech. You will note, however, that at this point, other than posting the original text for this page, I have made no other major updates to it. Other Wikipedians have themselves defended the article and numerous attempts to deface it. As far as the details you mention above, I do not make a secret of those events, but instead encourage individuals to get both sides of the story. Particularly relevant to this is the SCP Newsletter which discussed the events surrounding the actions you list, and the aftermath of the court decision upon SCP. All users of Wikipedia should use the site with the full knowledge that articles are presented in an as-is basis, and further research should be performed to corroborate the information contained within it. Wikipedia, after all, is by definition a work in progress, and therefore not perfect.

As far as a sound defeat of the Harvest House suit, this is hardly assured. Some details can be found here:

Harvest House Corporate Statement on the Local Church/Living Stream Ministry Lawsuit

Harvest House Frequently asked questions regarding the lawsuit

From Living Stream Ministries, a response:

Response to Harvest House Corporate Statement

And, the most recent response from Harvest House:

Harvest House Publishers and Authors Address Newest Allegations from The Local Church and Living Stream Ministry

(This statement has only been out a couple days. Living Stream Ministry will likely put out a response shortly, however at the time of this edit I am unaware of a response.)

I think your speculation about my identity will be seen by users as adolescent :) That said, I do appreciate your speculation that I might be Anton Hein, and take it more as a compliment than an attack. Anton has his own website, Apologetics Index, which has information about this movement posted. Apparently he can defend himself :) As an aside, if you disagree with Anton's site, there are avenues on his website with which you can express your disagreement. As far as Anton Hein purportedly being a child molestor, how does this speculation relate to the accuracy of this particular article?

As far as NPOV is concerned, NPOV applies to all sides of a discussion, not just one particular one. It would be irresponsible to remove mention of controversy from this article in the interest of a supposed NPOV, as I pointed out already with Wikipedia Sysop Bryan Derksen. If you disagree with my user page, feel free to bring that up with me on my talk page. If you feel that I am a problem for Wikipedia, then you are welcome to address that with one of the Wikipedia Sysops :)

Thanks!

Points

I think it is important we stick the 6 major teachings of The Local Church, so we can hold those in Lee camp accountable instead of continually letting them off the hook by their not addressing these problems (i.e. always skirting around the facts): calvinism (pride in believing in being premade for salvation), suing for faith, modalism (saying the Father is the Son and the Godhead is a Person), altering Watchman Nee's writings (e.g. limiting affection to love and desire only to hate in LSM TSM), calling oneself God (in any way shape or form), and violent screaming mantra (which is neither prayer nor reading to yell 2 or 3 words aggressively).

Also, can we please stick to why it is wrong to have a central-hub command and control centre of LSM for filthy lucre, and no Aposles (which is rejecting Eph. 4.11). If the outlets of the lsm/lc system are without Apostles, then their outlets are taken care of by false Elders since those Elders are not and never will be appointed by Apostles. All this seems like quite a reasonable assessment stated succinctly. If only we could maintain the focus on these specific problems instead of always filling the pages with other matters, perhaps you will help this organization to find the way of the Dodo bird which is God's will. Sincerely. (unsigned comment)

The above rant does more to expose the negative motives of the anti-local church apologist fanatics than it does about the local church. Using words like "filthy lucre" is a joke! Last I checked, when I went to a Presbyterian church, they passed around a collection plate. At a local church meeting, there was NO COLLECTION PLATE. So, the charge is false and biased.

Two, the Catholic church has a central hub-command system. Each church has the right to structure itself the way it sees fit. To be honest, since Catholics are a majority of Christians and others (including Anglicans) have a central structure, in fact the opinionator is in the minority.

Three, an "apostle" is a "sent one." The local church has "apostles." However, they do not officially name persons "apostles". Not doing so is a sign of humility, as it is up to God to decide who is a real apostle or not.

Four, such a response is far from reasonable. If anything need go the way of the Dodo bird, it is those who spout off first without thinking, coming at a subject with an agenda and a closed mind.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 11:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I've nominated the outsourced criticism page for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local Church controversy. According to our policy, the criticism almost always should be part of the main article. Some major editing here is needed. --Pjacobi 15:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I started this separate article, and I agree that for the sake of NPOV, it should be part of the main article. Chitu 16:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The result of the January AfD was merge and major problems were seen with the Controversies article:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local Church controversy

I've waited months that somebody knowledgeable would volunteer to do the prune and merge, but to no avail. To end thsi stalemate, I bluntly inserted the entire Controversies article here and hope for merciless editing to resolve the problems. --Pjacobi 20:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to propose moving the material in "The Local Church as a Cult" to the "Local Church Controversy" page as it is off topic in the page about the history and practices. Furthermore, I submit that "Cult Awareness" is not NPOV and that the title should be changed to what is now the subtitle, "Opposing Points of View"

E David Moyer 03:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Last I checked, freedom of religion meant the right to believe whatever one chooses. What I find controversial is not the local church teachings but the smear campaign and polemics from those who seek to misinform, misrepresent, and mislead by building straw-man arguments. In the 1500's, Martin Luther was 'controversial'...but 500 years later, we see that he was right about a great many things. But in this case, right or wrong does not matter, what matters is a NPOV. Considering that most of the 'controversy' in fact amounts to apologist attacks from outsiders, might WIKIPEDIA consider downplaying the 'controversial' aspect. Might we say that all religion is controversial to those who do not agree with it.→ R Young 01:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Might I say the above stories miss the mark. First, this talk page should be about the local church, not one's personal experiences. Second, since no one is forced to join a 'brother's house'/'sisters house', what is the point of explaining it? After all, the vast majority of local church members live in their private homes. 'Brothers houses' and 'sisters houses' are ther to provide alternatives to dorm living. One thing I do agree on: there is no force; if you don't want to be there, you are free to leave.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 11:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ryoung, you are right in that what's controversial is "the smear campaign and polemics from those who seek to misinform, misrepresent, and mislead by building straw-man arguments." What's more disturbing is that the critical sites are written by the same group of people.

--Pehkay

(my delete... jb)

I agree to most of the suggestions put forward by my colleague. However, it could be better if one or all of the dissection could be the offshoot of the main article. Just like we have an article Christianity and then also various offshoots. Now, in any way I'm not comparing the weight or model in doing so with the article local churches and its possible offshoots but then just a pattern or an example.

Secondly, I would say, the theology of each particular group could be made as a bar for the differentiation, but then no where in the writings of both Mr. Nee or Lee, we see any such divisive advice or doctrines, it is only the interpretation or personal choice of these various groups that they are separate, just as with the Bible and the entire religions of the world. Anyone, who is both interested and capable of doing the justice with NPOV on the subjects such as God, Jesus, or Religion are most welcome on Wiki. By the way, the article Jesus on Wiki was a FA status article and as it stands now it is a GA class!! Now, how on earth, there is justice, truth, and "factual NPOV".?! Now if you see this article to be a real NPOV and perfect, then so should be done to all the religion based article. So please do not bring up the "Theological confusions and different histories" but line up possible offshoots. And each article can have its own criticism section within it to achieve the so called "secular Godless NPOV"! Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A Mess

This article is a mess. It seems there isn't an editor available who knows something about the subject and is able and willing to write encyclopedic style. Silly disclaimers like As the issues here are of disputed neutrality and accuracy, it is hoped that Wikipedians will add (rather than delete) information to point out any deficiencies in these respects, in the spirit of having a neutral, factual discussion. (in article space!) don't help much. --Pjacobi 18:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If possible, I would like to volunteer to be an editor for this topic. I have attended meetings at the local church for a few years and have a good grasp of their teachings. Since 2002, I have not participated in any meetings or had contacts with anyone involved with the Local Church. Having been on both sides, I believe I will make a good editor. Please let me know how to best proceed as an editor.FredCheng 08:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

First I would like to say wikipedia is a wonderful site. But is becoming more or less generic and it seems to be digressing. If it were upto me I would have gotten rid of this article on the local churches along time ago. This action should have been foreseen whether or not who put the article up. I'm not quite sure who put the article up, but from what I can tell its points are somewhat inaccurate, especially the allegations. It sickens me to have seen this. This is not a controversy, its just crap and uselessness. You people have no position to make this article, especially if you have never witnessed the church life. I've been in the church life for 17 years, and it sickens me to see this horrid stuff on here. I can honestly tell the viewers of this site that they are becoming bigots of bigotry just falling into this madness.

I have grown up in the church life, and this article annoys me. Even though we emphasize that the church should NOT take a name, over and over the churches are referred to as some organization, "The Local Church." I am not being biased, it is inaccurate. There is more than one local church. That's the whole point. it's not The Local Church (like the Catholic Church or whatever). The term 'local churches' is simply used to describe them, not as a name. Please do not call the local churches The Local Church. They are all just small expressions of the one universal church.

It disgusts me that members of the Body should be called "followers of Lee", "Leeists", or believers in "Leeism". Witness Lee and Watchman Nee were both faithful servants used by the Lord to recover many truths lost over the years. God gave them the revelations. Do not think that Witness and Watchman thought it all up on their own and then tried to spread their teachings. Believers who meet with the local churches should NEVER be called followers of Lee. The Bible is their standard and the Lord is one and only Head. They would never think that they are in "Lee's church" or that Living Stream Ministry is in charge of everything.

Moved Allegations to New Page

I have created a Allegations page, because I believe having allegations on the main page gives the organisation a bad look, and therefore destroys the organisation's reputation.
I don't see any allegations on the front page of Wikipedia, and I don't think it is in Wikipedia's interests to create a article with a bias point of view.
-Michael Quantum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelquantum (talk • contribs) 05:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

You need to do this according to wikipedia guidelines, not to protect the organization: this isn't your personal project; please check Wikipedia guidelines and then give the justification for this on the discussion page or it will need to be reverted. For example of a (now) good page about handling controversial articles related to faith-groups see the page and discussion page of Great Commission Association. That's one that's been relatively genial and which has become fairly balanced. Thanks. : ) Infinitelink (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Renaming the Article from 'Local Churches' to "The Lord's Recovery"

I would like to propose the change of the article name from the "Local Churches" to "The Lord's Recovery" as the members of this organisation call themselves and refer to themselves as.Michaelquantum 06:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have grown up in the church life, and this article annoys me. Even though we emphasize that the church should NOT take a name, over and over the churches are referred to as some organization, "The Local Church." I am not being biased, it is inaccurate. There is more than one local church. That's the whole point. it's not The Local Church (like the Catholic Church or whatever). The term 'local churches' is simply used to describe them, not as a name. Please do not call the local churches The Local Church. They are all just small expressions of the one universal church.

The quote that is quoted above from an insider has the answer to your request or if not than atleast some insight to it. Let the name be as it is. Further changes will create more mess. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations and Unbiased opinions needed

We all have agreements/disagreements points of views about different opinions and views.

However, please give an unbiased description and cite sources about the "local churches", the editor pehkay appears to be a member of the local church organization and writing a lecture of a sermon of the organization's point of view.

Just as an lobbyist or company for an organization tried to use their point of view in promoting legislation or a product, ie the bankruptcy bill, or "tort reform" legislation, so pehkay is trying to do this.

There is nothing wrong if pehkay wants to cite, but he/she needs to also be unbiased and list critics and sources. This is rational and fair. We don't need a person from the organization dominating this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyuse200 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is sorely lacking in sources- the first paragraph has 8 links for sources and then none; other then 4 links to one website that is owned by the "church."

I will give the page some time, then I will reccomend turning it into a stub.

Also there are too many critical links WP:UNDUE and many of them are weak, blogs and the like. Sethie (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Blogs should be removed. Thanks HopeChrist (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for Encyclopedic type information - which means that it should contain unbiased factual information on the topic - not recruiting style advertising: or everything is rosy, smoke and mirrors. This could include information that may not be positive or wanted by people associated with the topic to become the public view. Also, there is a lot of disinformation in this page. For example, the "links of web sites supportive of the Local Church" are all sites published by Local Church members - not by serious scholars or anyone who has done serious objective study of the group from an outsiders perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Step2new (talk • contribs) 09:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the article "local churches" is not a great one as there are not so many good faith editors working on to improve it. Also the article is not so clear about what really the local churches is? and how is it Lord's Recovery? and other information about the believes of this movement. There is much to be written and expanded and made clear to both Christians and non-Christians alike. (I believe this is the purpose of wikipedia - all users could access trustworthy information.)

I think under the section "sites supportive of LC" there is an external evaluation from "Fuller Theological Seminary". These sites are not from LSM or any any LC. These are independent sites (no doubt created by people of same faith); but then the information contained inside these cites are factual and correct; and not to deceive others.

However, there is no information control going on by anyone but but there is lack of co-ordination between the editors. If all the editors could place more weight on FACTS than to Good or Bad, any article could be made great. For example, there are many Christian scholarly critics of Local Church movement and doctrine -- > Factually true. So let it be. Now scholars accuse LC by saying they believe in the doctrine of Modalism ---- > Factually wrong, so tell this too. Another example, LC emphasize on being the Lord's recovery and both Nee and Lee were crucial in God's move----> Factually true, so let it be in the article. Some other say, LC is of Witness Lee ---> Factually wrong, as the history of LR or LC didn't say that. LC is different than other Christian denomination ---> Factually true, few difference in the ways meetings are carried can be seen in the article. Some say, so it is a cult ---> Factually wrong; cult? based on what parameters (a cult based on lawsuits, a cult based on defending herself by presenting the truth, ??), etc, etc ... so if we place greatest weight on the FACTS, all the readers of wikipedia will have some beneficial gain.Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Category: New Religious Movements

Greetings,

Just a few comments here:

1. How long does a "movement" have to exist before its not a "new" movement?

2. The local church considers itself not to be a religion...in fact there is a book called "Christ versus Religion." The ideology is that "religion" is an "outward practice, a form to follow." Note there are no "reverend" titles, no "pastors," no "official" speakers...anyone can speak at a meeting, by acclamation. There is no candle-burning, rosary-bead counting, etc.

Ryoung122 04:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ryoung, here in this article and in today's modern political terminology, the term "new religious movement" is not about the time frame but about the new ideologies which are kind of unfitting to the conventional religion, religious practices, or religious world, opinion, or thoughts or even scriptures (traditional interpretation of doctrines). For eg. Buddhism is not a new religious movement, but if you follow its doctrines and also embrace Christianity at the same time and also praise Mohammed, it will become a new religious movement provided you get a good following. (Time is not an issue)

It doesn't matter what local church or those who share the same faith believe, but the more important and crucial question is Is the local church really a new religion? My answer to that is - NO. First of all, it has to have some sort of teachings or elements in it (ex. mixing up paganism with Christianity, etc..), which would be unorthodox. The local church is definitely an extra-orthodox candidate but that can be seen as progression as well (in one sense), just as it is with Martin Luther, John Calvin, and today's protestants.

Secondly, by looking at the teachings and the books LSM publishes (and the local church practices); I see 'it' (the LC) more like being a new way to practice the New Testament but within the confined boundaries of Christianity. I mean, its hard to explain and understand all this by few words, but my argument is "it is not a new religion". Discussing it more would be even more beneficial. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

-Original comments hidden by author.- Gijones (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I somehow disagree to most of the above mentioned points. Before writing anything, I would like to link two pages from Wiki. Wikipedia:No personal attacks (in a softer sense, we should not impose our psychoanalysis on someone whom we barely know; and even if we do, what benefit there is in that for Wiki or for the whole community! Give it a thought.)

Second useful link is to peep in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. A short article Talk page is also good to read. I think, both adding or removing (something) could be against the spirit and neutrality of Wikipedia. My explanation for my revert is given above. The content and topic of the arguments are supposed to be discuss and not what a person might be thinking. Unfortunately, most of the arguments debated are not on the subject matter but are on persons and what they did (and even strange enough, what they were thinking when they wrote something). Let us please stick to the Wiki guidelines about the general consensus among the editors and the weight of the arguments presented (not the number of people speaking). After all, this is how Wiki works. Discussing the content is the best thing. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree it as a fact that some editors have not so good experiences on the Wiki, however, Wikipedia suggests, assuming good faith while discussing something and when working with other editors on Wikipedia. This is good; this works; and this is best for all! Also, its hard to practice but then the objectivity should be kept and placed when discussing objective issues and subjectivity should not be given a chance to become a biasing agent. If subjectivity is the matter, we should not become too objective about it. I think, it works, and it is good again, in my opinion. Thanks.HopeChrist (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have hidden my earlier comments, so that you no longer have to feel as though I was attacking you personally. No one has to read them unless they want to.

Gijones (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:new religious movements: I think, like all wiki articles which are not in the GA or FA or even B status, could not be counted as the base for any argument. Secondly, according the article, no where there is any strict definition about on whom to include and under what? If you look to its discussion page, things are even more shaggy. Well, I feel that this article definitely has some good points to tell but then it is not an argument for putting this article under the NRM.

For example, consider, the statements like, ["...Debate surrounds the phrase "of recent origin": some authors use World War II as the dividing line after which anything is "new", whereas others define as "new" everything after the advent of the Bahá'í Faith (mid-19th century) or even everything after Sikhism (17th century)"] this from the mentioned article. Also, if you notice enough here the weight of the theory is put on "time". And time in itself is a big debated issue. Also, at another places, the NRM article states, "...no consensus has been reached in the definition of new religious movement among scholars." So what is the main point here?! Anyways, I think, we are going good and further constructive discussions will sort out some of the issues. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I still feel that you are inserting you own personal bias here. Your comments make me think that you should be commenting on the NRM page and not the Local Church page. Obviously, your concern is with the general definition of New Religious Movement (NRM) which is obviously not some solidly defined thing--but for the scope of the Local Church, the time period of its emergence in the 60s and 70s is well within the disparate definitions of NRM (including all of those you quoted). You reverted the tagging based, not on common definitions, but your own personal one... that is absolutely biased. When I point to the Wikipedia entry for NRMs, you poo-poo its validity by saying it doesn't rate high enough. But you don't offer a single third party support for your definition of NRM.

Not personal bias but personal opinion. And like any thoughts, giving opinion is neither right or wrong. It is just an opinion. That's why we have to look to the weight of the argument (opinion) based on sourced tagged or quoted. Consensus among the editors come into play here; not fighting. Debate is good sometimes; but not always if both parties are well convinced that they both are totally right. I believe, I am not totally right, all the time. Thanks.HopeChrist (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few published works that explore the definition of new in this context:

New Religious Movements by Bryan R. Wilson, Jamie Cresswell

"New Religious Movements, as sociologists have generally designated the congeries of spiritual organizations that have emerged in the last three or four decades..." (Introduction)

Exploring New Religions by George D. Chyssides

One convenient benchmark that is frequently used as a watershed for separating 'old' and 'new' religions is the Second World War. Peter Clarke, for example, takes as his scope 'those new religions that have emerged in Britain since 1945' (Clarke, 1987, p.5). Eileen Barker opts for a somewhat later boundary; she writes:

The term new religious movement (NRM) is used to cover a disparate collection of organizations, most of which have emerged in their present form since the 1950's and most of which offer some kind of answer to questions of a fundamental religious, spiritual or philosophical nature. (Barker, 1989, p. 9)

Other scholars believe that the real explosion of new religions came even later, identifying the 1960s and 1970s as the period of their real rise (Melton and Moore, 1982; Beckford, 1985; Nelson, 1987). (p. 12)

In the Book Understanding New Religious Movements by John A. Saliba & J. Gordon Melton, the Local Churches are mentioned among other NRMs, and J. Gordon Melton is a friend of the LCs and is quoted widely by them. Obviously, they respect him enough to accept his opinions regarding them, why do you feel so strongly that you should disagree with well respected professionals in that field of study? Where is your supported evidence to the contrary?

You try to make the case that the LC is derivative or some kind of accepted shoot off the branch of run-of-the-mill Christianity... ChristHope, you should know that they LC would disavow such a thought. Other groups that consider themselves orthodox Christians are still considered NRMs. Early Protestantism was a return to biblical Christianity, but at the time, it was considered a cult and unorthodox because is separated from normalized Christianity in the Catholic Church. Being a NRM doesn't have to mean that it is altogether new, like Scientology, or that it had something new added to something that existed, like the Mormonism. Often sects of the Christian Church are counted among NRMs such as the Holiness Movement.

Ultimately, I don't care if it is tagged or not tagged. The only reason I chimed in was because this seemed to me to be a direct action of bias from someone who is seemingly a strong advocate of a NPOV. It appears that you are personally convinced that you are right. J Gordon Melton, who is a well respected expert in the field and widely quoted by other writers and researchers, does not believe that the LC is a cult, but does categorize them as a new religious movement. I did a quick google of "new religious movements" and looked at sites that had a index of groups. Everyone that I looked at, that had a list, included the Local Church in it. What more justification do you need to accept that the LC is commonly accepted to be among NRMs?

No need to debate this further, I just wanted to point out some possible NPOV hypocrisy here, not establish the LC as an NRM.

Gijones (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a good research and good work. I assume it as a good faith; and also part of the reason is I don't have that time to cross-check all these sources. Anyways, I assume based upon the given arguments, well, I should not debate it further until few more people give their opinion too.

As per my understanding, I consider, any branch of any established religion, a religion and to be qualified as a NRM, it has to be some sort of different than what you haven't seen, heard or not based on some scriptures. For ex., most of the NRMs have either their own new scriptures or no standard scriptures at all.

But then it is quite possible that sociologist might look at things differently than most of us. Some time it does not make sense to me. But I don't mean this for everyone. I am not a MA or PhD in religion studies or sociology; and I don't publish any books either! So, I leave the entire decision on the general consensus among the Wiki editors. I care for this article same as I care for the trustworthiness of Wiki however, I do value NPOV most as that is the only tool to save any editor (or an article) becoming 'extreme Good' or 'extreme bad'. I hope this will clear some of the misunderstanding. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Robert, the book 'Christ vs. Religion' is not 'The Local Churches|The Lord's Recovery vs. Religion' using that book as evidence of the LC's not being a religion is a stretch. As I am sure you are aware, the definition of "religion" is different for different people and groups. What members of the LC may consider the definition of religion is not the most common definition. If we want to talk about religion in the context of Wikipedia, let's use the definition supplied under the encyclopedia here. This is where NPOV is crucial. I believe, regardless of what members believe, the common folk believe the local churches practice (or are) a religion. The wiki article even makes a point to discuss "organized religion" as a term that is derivative and not synonymous with the general term "religion".

The order of a church meeting does not determine if it is a religion or not. The Plymouth Brethren do not have ordained ministers and practice only the non-salaried offices of elders and deacons. Similarly, the Jehovah's Witnesses do not call their meeting places a "church" and practice many of the outward practices of the LC including the open speaking of the members. Would you consider the Plymouth Brethren and Jehovah's Witnesses not to be a religion because of such practices?

Probably even more definitively, I don't know of any Local Church that has repudiated the label of religion enough to not file with their State as a official religious organization, fulfilling all the evidences and requirements there of and taking the benefits that such a status provides... and there are small Christian groups today that feel that they are standing outside of organized "religion" enough to repudiate such an official label (at a great financial cost). The LSM and the DCP both hold up the LC's entry in J. Gordon Melton's 'The Encyclopedia of American Religions' as support of their orthodoxy. You can even see a reprint on a LC website.

I think the tag would be appropriate, or certainly not so inappropriate as to warrant fighting against it; personally, I see the LC is a grafted branch off the Exclusive Brethren. As for as how long it has to exist before a religion is no longer new... I would say at least three generations... maybe 150 years. Certainly any religious movement that has appeared in the last century is still fairly new, as far as religions go.

Gijones (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. So if the local church branches off the family tree of churches, from the Plymouth Brethren, then it's not so "New," is it? In fact, it originated from evangelists in China preaching the gospel in the 1920s.Ryoung122 21:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

To Editors from local churches

My first advice to help leeists is to ask them to be intellectually honest with themselves at the very least. In the matter of their thinking the Son is the Father and the Godhead is a Person rather than 3 Persons they should ask themselves where evidence for their theory exists and why change Christianity after all these centuries?

They want to feel special with their special teaching and revelation to self-exalt themselves above mankind and God, but if their thoughts can't be proven, they are receiving teaching from the evil spirit whom is Satan to separate themselves from God wittingly or unwittingly. Self-declarations are deadly points of pride.

Recall Satan tries to replicate God's design and plans, for the Devil is the great deceiver. Satan, the false accuser, feels God's design is a cosmic gag reel for God's own sadistic pleasure, by placing everything in opposites: look but don't touch, touch but don't taste, taste but don't swallow. Satan suffers from his own mistaken assumptions about reality through his initial disobedience to the Triune Godhead. The truth of his mistaken assumption, of course, is that sin is so nefarious it penetrates all things and confuses proper order in relationship with God that it appears everything is placed in opposites, but it is not the case at all. There is no yin yang. The truth would be in some cases look but don't taste, touch but don't taste, taste but don't swallow.

Since we find in the Bible evidence for the Father being a distinct personage from the Son and the Spirit before the foundations of the world then a Christian holds no assumptions and accepts plainly what the Scriptures tell us that God is a Triune Being of One Substance. Leeists, on the other hand, suffer greatly by their assumptions in their 6 major sins of leeism...http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/lsmlccult.htm

The same test of faith can be observed in other areas as well such as these false teachings they harbor: screaming mantra, suing for faith, bearing false witness (e.g. against Watchman Nee's writings), calvinism (claiming they were premade for salvation like robots), calling themselves God (deification) and central-command and control of all their outlets under the ownership of The Local Living Stream Ministry Church.

Remember, according to Biblocality in the Scriptures, there is no central command, but apostles are regional workers. Not only is the Roman Church wrong so is the The Local Church for their divisive centrality. Do not divide the body of Christ by theories of men: "I of Apollos" or "I of Cephas," (denoms) nor even "I of Christ" (non-denoms); the church locale has no central command apart from Christ Himself. The Biblical locality is within a region of churches only, e.g. church of Jerusalem in the churches of Judea, the church of Ephesus in the churches of Asia Minor, or the church of Antioch in the churches of Syria.

There is no evidence in God's Word for the LLSMC false teachings, and evidence exists for these ideas being false, so they should be rejected. The prayers of the body of Christ is for your acceptance of the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.74.101 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "Leeism."Ryoung122 02:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether you agree or not with a believe system is IRRELEVANT on Wikipedia. Please try to remain objective, and stop this crusade. There is no such thing as "leeism."Ryoung122 02:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation credibility

I just undid a massive change to the article not because it was entirely vandalism, but because of the massive attack on the credibility of every single citation in the article. It should be known to all future editors that these citations have been verified to be credible sources, especially in their use in this article, so please do not do this again. In addition, if you really think the article is written like an advertisement please feel free to make some suggestions on this talk page as to how it might be changed instead of just marking it as such and leaving, as that template has been there frequently yet nothing has changed. If someone wants to go back and make some of the other changes again, that would not be inappropriate. KhalfaniKhaldun 16:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations must be from independent sources, not from the subject of the article itself. So far, there are no independent sources anywhere in the article. Furthermore, the material itself appears to have no meaningful purpose or apparent relevance to an encyclopedia. Ad.minster (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Rule violations

This article has numerous big problems, all of which violate Wikipedia rules and guidelines:

1. The article reads like an advertisement for this religion, but templates noting the article is in dispute are repeatedly deleted;
2. The article opens with unsupported statements without noting that they, as well as this religion itself, are controversial;
3. The article is poorly written perhaps even borderline gibberish, and in many cases the relevance of statements is not apparent;
4. The article is sourced only with statements from the religion itself -- independent views are quickly deleted;
5. The article is flooded with linkspam, but links to sites associated with the religion itself are falsely identified as from independent sources.
6. Any edits made depicting this religion in anything but positive terms are quickly reverted.

Ad.minster (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Your attempt to make it look like you are in the right is clearly thinly veiled. Comments like THIS:

The local churches (one-city, one-church) (Chinese: 地方教會) is a controversial religious group allegedly based on the Bible as interpreted by the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee,

Don't belong on Wikipedia. This is not the place to fight the counter-Reformation or whatever.Ryoung122 02:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment/input is on the top of the page. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide sources or quotation for the statements you added to the article's controversy section such as:

"Critics claim that refusing to identify itself publicly is a way for the group to operate without scrutiny or without taking responsibility for its teachings and practices. Anonymity is a cloak." {source(S)?}

"Critics claim that Daystar was the first in a long string of unethical financial activities demonstrating that a primary purpose of the group is not religion, but financial gain." {source(s)?}

"Critics claim that the group uses Christian terminology in ways different or in some cases contradictory to the way that the public understands them. Thus, for example, the group can claim to uphold historic Christian creeds, while defining their words in completely different ways internally." {source(s)?}

"Critics claim that the group shows a consistent pattern since 1962 of persecuting Christians who chose to discuss the group publicly. The inference is thus that the group will use any available means to silence opponents who wish to discuss the group without its approval." {source(s)?}

Thanks, HopeChrist (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a couple quick questions:

1. How is the article written like an advertisement? Can you specifically quote any part of the article that is clearly using propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment? The only part of the article that I've read (and I'll admit, I haven't read it in detail and am not likely to unless I'm required to for this dispute) that states any opinions about the group are all the "Critics claim" bits mentioned above. I do understand that there may be some NPOV problems that lead to what seems to be self-promotion, but HopeChrist is at least trying to work it out neutrally.
2. Not gonna argue with 2. Throw in a mention that it's controversial. Just don't make your statement too controversial.
3. Once again, not gonna argue. Like I said, I haven't done much more than scan the article, but fixing the article up so that its statements are more clear and understandable is something anyone should be able to do. It would help if a native English-speaker worked on it - like you, adminster.
4. My problem with the sourcing is that there is no possible way to find a more legitimate source about the practices of the churches than from the people themselves. If you have a better legitimate suggestion, replace the sources. From what I've seen, though, since my parents are both members of the local churches (NOTE: I, myself, am not a member, as I have issues with some of their practices, and therefor maintain that I have a fairly NPOV) a lot of independent sites describing their practices are closer to wrong than correct. As it stands now those sources addressing the practices and beliefs of the local churches should not be challenged.

Last, about the Sunday nights bit - Lords Table meetings do not only take place at night. It depends entirely on the locality you are in. The fact that it keeps being changed from "service" to "nights" tells me that someone is relying on unreliable sources or that they had a bad experience with the local churches somewhere that had theirs on Sunday nights - which means a non-NPOV. It would seem that the two of you are both fairly headstrong with your feelings about this article, so try and work it out without starting another edit-war. And adminster, in the future try and break down your edits into smaller ones so that reverting one only reverts a specific change you made. For example, changing some wording around and adding verify tags to all the sources should be done separately so that reverting one does not get rid of all your work on the other part. KhalfaniKhaldun 23:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a disputed article about a controversial organization

This is a disputed article about a controversial organization. Continued use of Wikipedia as a free advertising service and removing dispute Boilers will be reverted as per wiki guidelines and MOS. Best wishes, Ad.minster (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Ad.minster,

I can see from one of your IP address that you have some strong personal issues with the Local churches article and you talk page for your IP address User talk:70.150.177.5 clearly demonstrates that reality!

After finding your true identity: (this link shows that and also your word for word exact edits on the article Local Church controversies, follow this link too). You are too smart so why not discuss first and prove your points and answer the questions raised on the talk page before vandalizing the article to some extent. I'll keep an eye on your edits and I might not revert you entirely this time, but defientely I am going to edit you as you are not eligble to demostrate a NPOV. Sincerely, HopeChrist (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Deceptive linkspam

It is dishonest to flood the article with links to official sites run by this religion as if they are independent of it. The article has too many links, which by their sheer number are spam, but I am allowing them so long as their affiliation is clearly marked.

Wikipedia is not a free advertising service to push a religion. Best wishes, Ad.minster (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

User: Ad.minster, Could you please throw some information on how these supportive sites are not independent and run by the local churches? What sources do you have, can you quote few of your (neutral) sources? Thanks for your time. HopeChrist (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Read them. All my best sincerely, Ad.minster (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reduced the number of links (which were from the same website). Regarding the official links, I think you need to cross-check your information and there are number of websites that are run independently. Well, but just to make the facts straight, otherwise I've no personal issues with which links comes from where! Thanks, HopeChrist (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent Disruptive Edits (09/24/2008)

This article is recently been attacked and vandalized; furthermore, I do not understand how come this "Sunday Nights" correlates with the Lord's table meeting. Most of the edits disqualifies all the quoted citation but adds a uncited portion in the "controversy section" without even providing a citation temp., strange, .. !!

Where is the advertisement? User:Ad.minster can you please show or mark the advertisement portion in the last stable version of the article. Also what sources do you have to tell about the links that whether it is an official link of Local churches or supportive or not? Where is this local church?

I would ask for the other editors of this page to look into his edits and bring a NPOV in the article and also somehow to reach the general consensus. I have reverted couple of vandalism earlier but this time it seems that discussing might be able solve the problem among the editors. Best wishes, HopeChrist (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see the bottom of this page for further discussion and issues. Thanks, HopeChrist (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious you view Wikipedia as a free platform to push your controversial religion. This is not allowed. Best wishes, Ad.minster (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I again humbly request you to correct your own POV regarding others! If you can not cite anything don't speak it or throw it in a disputed article. I do not view nor have I ever used Wiki as an advertising platform. I do not have that good amount of time as you, not I'm interested in politics of propaganda and promotion, you better check my previous edits and contribution on the Wikipedia, and then speak up something against me. By the way, you haven't sourced any of your statements which are in question.

Secondly, the recent edits of your are nothing but vandalizing an article. If more people show up here in the discussion, I would be more than willing to bring up some issues with your edits and the nature of your edits. I must mention, I have no personal issues, grudges, or confrontation with you. I am as open as my User:page is. Until then, enjoy. Thanks, HopeChrist (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

writing articles on religious subjects/groups

I've studied the WK guidelines and pages of discussion and as much edit wars as I was able to find. I also researched the contribution, deletion, and the ways the editing has been going on WK (for this and related article). Here is a summary of what I thought would be good to put here:

1. For any given topic, pro- writers will want to cast the group in as favourable light as possible. Con- writers will want to show the negative aspects of membership in the group, and the negative effects of the group and society in the world. Following WIKI guidelines helps to prevent topics from becoming pro- and con- battlegrounds. I'd like to summarize those guidelines I've found to be especially pertinent and useful.

1b. First, any useful, non-controversial statements such as 'the sky is blue' to which pro- and con- observers agree, and which are not obvious to the general reader, should be allowed without citations. This is because for many groups, no good secondary sources exist and basic information is always of use to the interested. “An example might be to describe the way in which baptism is carried out.” Or “The present order of worship.” This has nothing to do with controversy or showing the group in an favourable light. The meeting is a fact (eg: the sky is blue) and the order is a fact but then you can't have press articles or newspapers, or volumes of book written on this silly matters.”

2. However other thing related to doctrines and controversial aspect should be cited. That means adding an in-line reference for each line being written, so that the fact is numbered, and a footnote made in the reference section. [IMO, if it's not cited and it's in any way controversial you should not add the point at all.] The argument is often made, that exceptions should be made for beginners. I think that beginners should work like this from day one, and thus spared embarrassment and editor slams. (Which is how I learned.) Also we should not delete the whole section in a instant. We all should work together to present the facts and if we know that something is true (pro or con), we should not turn it into controversy or edit wars.

3. When you cite, use only 'secondary sources' such as encyclopedias, articles in scholary journals, and published books (which have been peer reviewed), or other responsible publishing houses. This is very important because only these sources know how to cross check information, avoid libelous issues, and generally provide a WP:NPOV. Do not use any of the following, which wikipedia disallows: Self-published sources, especially web sites either pro- or con-. See also WP:SPS. Newspaper articles, photos, diaries, journals, and so on. These are primary sources, and writing which uses such sources is original research which violates WP:NOR.

4. There is a situation where I believe newspaper articles can be used. This is the case of a survey newspaper or magazine article which is wide in scope and has performed background research. Newspaper articles however on specific events should not be used, especially historical events.

5. We don't delete sections when citations are needed. We use fact tags.

6. Anyone's work is good as long as one has a valid reason for what she/he is editing on the wikipedia. Before deleting a whole section based on "duplicate" item, please wait for a day or two to see if the editor is improving or editing the section or not. Please be patience!

7. Also, please check the reference page before you change a (or any) content quoted based on the references. (for ex. "devout to the movement" vs. the devout to Christ or the Lord", etc)

8. Some of the facts or things can't have citation. I am repeating it here, it is important to understand. For ex: the order of meeting can't have a (third party) citation (until and unless a group is 500 years or more old) and it can't have "simply" because these things are of not doctrinal or disputed item but a matter of observance.

9. Finally, if someone can not cite for something which you think should have citation, put a fact|date tag and try to improve it if you can cite it (and instead of deleting it or turning the article into a "stub").

Please consider these humble request in good conscience and do think on it. These are WK guidelines only and the experience of editing on WK on religious/controversial subjects. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

external links

As the external links section was a debated topic, I have removed the separate headers for now and have also merged all the links into one. Feel free to post your feedback. Thanks, HopeChrist (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Why was the disambiguation replaced with a useless sentence? That needs to be returned to the way it was. KhalfaniKhaldun 22:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

"Local churches" should be "local churches." The group believes that this is not a name but an adjective, and that it IS the church, as mentioned in the Bible.Ryoung122 13:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

However wikipedia capitalization conventions for such articles is first word capitalized, leave the rest lower case, as the article is now. It would only be incorrect if it were "Local Churches (affiliation)." KhalfaniKhaldun 16:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

advertisement propaganda removal and discussion

Mr. Ad.minster, please identify and discuss where the article looks like an advertisement. Please don't cause others to waste their time reverting you, blocking you and keep addressing to you. I can see that you have won a civility award, please demonstrate it as well. God, Christ, life is pov matter, but one can demonstrate at least the secular humanity and civility. Best wishes, HopeChrist (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

new title

I liked the new name of this article. Also as it stands now "Local churches (affiliation)" - the title in itself reflects more accuracy and NPOV as when it was just "Local churches", and the name had lots of issues and confusions attached to it.

Anyways, but then can someone tell how adding the (affiliation) might help the readers and editors of this page? I can see something but with further input, the scope of the article will become more clearer. Thanks and wishes, HopeChrist (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Phil Johnson's Sites vs C H Spurgeon online

I have reverted quite a few times my friend's edit on this website's subject matter. Here is my comment on it:

There is a huge difference when we write one or the another from the above header. If you go to this above website, you can see the word 'Spurgeon' is only in the website domain name and as well as an archived section in one if the website's section. Another interesting fact is that when Spurgeon was alive there were no local churches or any such movement or whatever, ... I think this will clear some of the doubts regarding how to better represent this website in its summary or label. Thanks, HopeChrist (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

affiliated with Witness Lee?

This explicitly stated statement at the disambiguous page Local church (disambiguation) and on this article is wrong, biased (without a citation), and thus not encyclopedic nor a NPOV. There are two things mentioned, 1) affiliated with Witness Lee, 2) affiliated with Living Stream Ministry.

The later is also not quite factual but could be understood by the publication materials and the various local church' interest in those specific publication but the formal does not make any sense. W. Lee is not alive anymore and as far as I can read from all those "so called" affiliated websites, it seems to me that there is a big misunderstanding/interpretable second guessing, if someone is looking at the 'local churches' in a legal/ formal affiliation with late Witness Lee.

One thing important to mention here is the acceptance of the Lee's writings in the local churches, but then when we use words like 'affiliation' and 'affiliated' in common usage on the top of a page or on the disambiguous page, "Witness Lee" and "Local churches" do not go together and in-fact stating so would be wrong and incorrect. However, the "Living Stream" and "Local churches" might go hand in hand. (with emphasize on the word "might" - as there are local churches which might not be linked with the Living Stream, at-all or in a stronger sense)

Please address this issue and feel free to respond and share your thoughts on this regard. Thanks, HopeChrist (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, let's not split hairs here. I don't mind if every local church-associated or affliated group is linked. Truly, the "local churches" are associated strongly with Witness Lee. There comes a point when lawyeristic arguments simply gives ammunition to those who disagree with the local churches.

However, I would agree with removing any epithet such as "leeism", which is simply an attempt to deny that the local churches are Christian. Yet last I checked, local church members pray "Oh Lord Jesus," NEVER praying to Witness Lee. So someone saying "leeism" is pushing a completely false lie.Ryoung122 08:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ryoung122, you are right and as you said, is "association" and "affiliation" the same thing from a legal point of view? Anyways, I've no specific interest in changing the affiliation tone of this article as much as I'm concerned with more neutral third-party sourcing for most of the content written. And it'll take time. Thanks for your input, HopeChrist (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Third-party input

Greetings,

The article format is still too much "he said, she said" format. There doesn't need to be a long list of sites critical of the local churches, when those sites are nonobjective, religious sources. However, for the sake of compromise, even if we left thos in, there still needs to be a lot of neutral, third-party sources added.

Note, for example, if we turn to www.amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/General-Sketch-Testament-Christ-Church/dp/0736307540/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223196886&sr=1-4

Suggested Tags from Similar Products ( What's this?) Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product). Check a corresponding box or enter your own tags in the field below. bible (32) religion (32) biblical criticism (23) christianity (23) audio bible (22) apologetics (19) scripture (16) audio book (13) new testament (13) commentary on matthew (1)

Amazon.com, which could hardly be said to be affiliated with Living Stream Ministry, labels these books by Lee as "Christianity". Enough said.Ryoung122 08:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

archiving

Does anyone have any reservations to me archiving all the old threads on this Talk page? I realize upon skimming through most of them that they seem to be more along the lines of religious debates and forum talk that should probably just be deleted, however I think that archiving them would work well enough. Please reply in a timely manner ( < 5 days) if you have any issues with this. Thanks! KhalfaniKhaldun 20:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Archiving is a good idea. (Also merging the controversy 'offshoot' article with the main article will be fair enough and neutral.) Thanks, HopeChrist (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Any talk-page discussion that gets too long should be archived. Archiving is better than deletion because the same issues will tend to crop up again, and it's good to be able to reference that it's already been discussed. I do not favor a merger of articles...the focus of this article is the local churches, objectively...the focus of the other article is the non-acceptance of the local churches by Christian fundamentalist organizations. These two main topics cannot be fairly reconciled, as this article would be weighed down with too much extraneous material.Ryoung122 07:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the archive templates, since it seems to be accepted by the main editors of this page. Ryoung, the problem with several of the "issues" that seem to be on this page is that they are not wikipedia appropriate in the first place. If they were to pop up again in a new thread I would delete them right away based on WP:NOTFORUM.

logo

thumb|210px|The logo of the local churches.

Now that I have seen this logo with many of the full-timers and this seal on the Living Stream's catalog, and so on and so forth, I still doubt if this could be considered as an official or unofficial logo for the "local churches (affiliations) or local churches". I mean, what do you think? I am yet to see this logo appear on any of the websites describing local churches and the beliefs (standing), links and formalities ... or with any such thing!

Also, I am also not sure if this logo is of the Living Stream Ministry or of the local churches ... how come a local church can be branded by a simple logo ..well, ya, just say what you guys think over it. Thanks, HopeChrist (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just one who born to a Local Church family, but I'm not so familiar with their operating, thus I have no opinion about this problem, and I would like to see other's considerations too. luuva (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

controversies merge

According to this two year old AfD discussion, the controversies page should have been merged or deleted a long time ago based on the consensus of several editors. Since the page is literally entirely unsourced (at least not properly), I'd rather delete everything, but based on that old consensus I think a merger is appropriate. It would be MUCH appreciated if someone could find some RELIABLE sources for the parts that should be merged. Looking through the talk page, it seems that someone had a very good NPOV suggestion for reorganizing the article which I would like to implement in the merger, but it doesn't really matter if there aren't any sources. KhalfaniKhaldun 19:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has spoken up with any objections to this, I will begin working on an appropriate merged article next week. KhalfaniKhaldun 09:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Life can become busy! Yup, I can help in merge and that will give this article a more balanced look. Thanks for your initiative and effort. Good luck. HopeChrist (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm putting up what I think is appropriate for the controversies section on a page of my own. Check it out at User:Khalfani_khaldun/sandbox and let me know what you think, please, before I merge the main article into this one. It should be done by the end of the weekend. Comments might be better left on my talk page than here.

I looked into the creation of the current Local Church controversies page and noticed that it was created in 2007, and it seems to have been under the pretense of restoring it to what it was before the AfD debate to have it merged. It's still just a WP:POVFORK with very little citation. Also, looking through the talk page archives, I found that there was never a consensus agreed upon by the editors of this page to make the spin-off, thereby violating Wikipedia policy. KhalfaniKhaldun 04:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'd prefer a separate page. It's hard enough as it is to keep this page clean of "apologism" (or making edits for other faiths).Ryoung122 11:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Anyone have any suggestions for dealing with the external links section? It clearly does not adhere to the policy that the number of links should be kept to a minimum. I also have issues with the links being divided into pro- and against categories, as this seems to encourage non-NPOV editing. Perhaps we can find one website that summarizes most criticisms and one that is a response to said criticisms, maintain the LSM and other key sites, and then chuck the rest?

I'm just thinking out loud here. Feel free to throw your two cents in. KhalfaniKhaldun 08:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's do it. I fully agree with WP external links policy. Also, I would like to hear what others have to say on this. thanks, HopeChrist (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Advert tag

I would like to discuss where this article is written like an advertisement. If you feel there is advertisement or too much negative things or too much positive (in short if the article appears to be unbalanced), please mark it out and let's discuss it. I would count that as a positive constructive editing on Wikipedia. thanks, HopeChrist (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

ps: As of now, I'm removing the "advert tag". If you disagree, let's discuss before going into the edit wars.

Bogus References

Reference 23 in the article is incorrect as the reference, "Preaching the Gospel in the Way of Life, chp. (3, 4, 9-12)" has nothing to do with the Lord's table meeting. It should be deleted. Appropo (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference 24 from a book by Watchman Nee bears no resemblance whatsoever to the article as it now stands and is again a bogus reference. Appropo (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference 25, "Further Talks on the Church Life chpt 2 and 5" have nothing to do with the order of the Lord's table meeting. Read them. They are about Chpt2 the house not being the boundary of the church in a locality and Chpt5 the service of all the members in the church. Another bogus reference. Appropo (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference 26, "Lee, Witness: How to Meet chp. 1-16" is apparently not about the Lord's table meeting and its order either. The reference is so broad and varied, it could easily be used to contradict everything in the article, for instance, see Chapter 3 section 1 on "OUTSIDE OF RELIGION WITHOUT ANY FORMS". This would contradict having any forms at all. Appropo (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference 27, "Guidelines for the Lord's Table Meeting, chp 4-8" is so specific and detailed it would take a scholar to figure out if the description here actually fits the reference which is just a set of principles in minute detail. The multiple and expansive references appear to be only an attempt to snow the reader with details so numerous that we must assume they are right. Appropo (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference 28, "Life Study of 1 Corinthians, msg. 50 (The Lord's Table)" is merely about the Lord's table is a feast and says nothing about the order of the meeting. Come on if none of these references are clear on the following order, then this article must be original research. Appropo (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Not an Encyclopedic Article

Based on the above brief review of references (thanks to Khalfani khaldun's latest edit) one can see how bogus this whole entry is. The references all seem to be non-specific, massive and inappropriate. This is the latest of problems with Wikipedia as an "encylopedia". Appropo (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup. You're probably right. The question is what references can you find that will help to correct that problem? I don't own any of those books myself, so I can't check them. I could always ask a full-timer for help and have considered it before, but I'm afraid that would be a constant battle to keep the article WP:NPOV-compliant. KhalfaniKhaldun 02:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Claims Need to Be Verified -- or Retracted

Please explain your unsubstantiated claim that "the critical sites are written by the same group of people." The "same" in what sense? They're not all with the same organization, not all located in the same part of the world, not all of the same theological persuasion. Thank you.

And whose questions are these?HopeChrist (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Neil Duddy involved with SCP wrote "God-men" in defaming the LC, which were retracted.

John Weldon of Harvest House, was involved with SCP wrote another book at the same time from 1977-78. Thread of Gold's author is with the Bereans Apologetic board. etc..

Inherent Contradiction?

Please note that the article opens with: "The local churches (one-city, one-church) (Chinese: 地方教會) is a Christian movement based on the Bible as interpreted by the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, and associated with the Living Stream Ministry publishing house.[1][2] Its members see themselves as part of God's move to recover lost truths and experiences and practices from the Bible – part of what they sometimes call "the Lord's recovery". One of the defining features of the local churches is their adherence to their interpretation of biblical principle that all of the Christians in a city or locality are in a local church and hence a collection of local churches is what the movement consists of. To follow proper governmental procedures, many of the churches do incorporate a corporate entity and refer to themselves only as "The Church in -insert-locality-" (eg. The Church in Corinth, The Church in Ephesus, and likewise)."

Is a local church a local church if not "accociated with the Living Stream Ministry" or if doesn't interpret the Bible according to Witness Lee and Watchman Nee? It seems part of the definition here. What if the collection of local churches includes a "local church" that does not associate with the LSM. Is it still treated the same as the other local churches? Further, what if the local church that is not affiliated with the LSM is not even affiliated with the local churches who are. There seems to be a problem with the opening of this article, like the tail of a fox sticking out of its sheep's costume. Is it really the name "The Church in -insert-locality-" that makes it a local church or is it their stand, or is it their affiliation with the LSM? Appropo (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If the answer to the above is "yes", then how can the article go on to discuss the practices of the local churches in such a definitive way. What if they differ? Is it then not a local church? Is it and unaffiliated local church. Since the practices change in the local churches so frequently (see the New Way under Witness Lee) why even have a description of their practices in detail? Appropo (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty simple to explain, actually.

This page is about the group affiliated with Witness Lee and the Living Stream Ministry. For other uses, see local church (disambiguation).

(See Local church, especially.) KhalfaniKhaldun 20:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That clears up a lot. However, in your response you said "Witness Lee and the LSM". Could there be local churches affiliated with Witness Lee, but not the LSM (reference Titus Chu)? Still, how can this article descripe in detail the practices of the local church meetings, since they change so frequently. Appropo (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, it's hard to say about those Midwest churches that chose to follow Titus and not the LSM. I think because it is such a recent issue it is hard to say. Maybe there should be a section about it in the article? It would be much more appropriate than a lot of the current content... One would just have to find appropriate references. As for the practices in the meetings, I believe you may be more or less correct. The way a meeting flows is constantly open to adjustment for various purposes and is definitely different for almost every locality, and I think the article is suggesting that all of the local churches follow Lee's suggestions for how a meeting should flow to the letter, which is just not true. KhalfaniKhaldun 02:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is an another group of Christians those who affiliate themselves with Nee and Lee but Not with LSM, then they are still the local churches. We can include that as a section. However, if a group is only partially affiliated/connected to Nee, Lee, and to the very definition of a "local church", then they deserve a totally new article. HopeChrist (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Prayer Meeting?

The prayer meeting has been conspicuously omitted. Has the prayer meeting been dropped from the current church meetings in favor of Bible study and ministry meetings? This may take original research to answer, but it was in Watchman Nee's thought. I have added the heading. Someone with original research will have to add a description if that is possible. Appropo (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say NO more original research. The article is existing on original research. My suggestion: wait for more third party references to come; search Christianity Today editions on local churches, and then insert it appropriately. However according to Wikipedia, a NOPV original research (somewhat) is better than deletion. Thank you. HopeChrist (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Practices

There are other practices that are left out of the description: infant baptism, headcovering, separation of the sexes, speaking in tongues. How old are the children in the children's meeting? Are there communicants classes? Are there codes of dress for the women or men? (It appears there might be from the pictures of trainees.) Is there a practice of healing? Do the elders anoint the sick with oil? What do they believe about the handling of snakes? Do they practice baptism for the dead? Is the Lord's table bread unleavened? Do they use real wine? Do they pass one cup or use multiple cups to prevent disease? Are they huggers, hand shakers or do they greet one another with a holy kiss? Do they discourage or encourage dating and at what age? What instruments are played in the meetings if any, guitar, piano or organ? Do they have an official policy on playing the violin during church service? Do they practice excommunication and/or exocism? Is excommunication practiced locally or extralocally? Do they practice shunning? Do they practice the casting out of demons as Jesus did? If so how is an exocism performed? Do they have an official position on public display of affection? Do they have official policy on cell phones and other electronic devices? Do the elders sit in appointed seats? How are deacons appointed? What do deacons do? Can sisters be deacons? Can sisters be elders? Do they have special observances for any of the holidays? Do they practice recycling? Are they attempting to go green? Localchurch (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Your list is really big. HopeChrist (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So you get my point. It is way too much detail to give the order of a meeting. Who wrote this nonsense anyway? Was it you HopeChrist? What about practices that people might care about? Just address the basics, not first they all clear their throat, then they wisper a prayer, they greet the person beside them and then the one in front,.... This article is ridiculous! Localchurch (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I just looked at the article. It is looking much better. Good job! Localchurch (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yelled "Raise the Door"

This is unintelligible and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Appropo (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Local church is an affiliation that is not local

As the title of the article implies, the local church is a group of Christians affiliated with the teachings of Chinese preachers Witness Lee and Watchman Nee, and the Living Stream Ministry located in Anaheim, CA. So although they say the name is a description of what they are, local, they are not local because of their international affiliation. What would we call a church that takes no name but is not affiliated with Lee, Nee, and LSM? It would be a church, and it would be local in nature ,so it would be a local church. But it would not be a local church (affiliation). This contradicts what they say they are. So to identify what they are we must call them "The Local Churches affiliated with the teachings of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee and the Living Stream Ministry". So the description of them as a local church is not accurate. This is not original research but common sense. As "The Local Churches affiliated with the Teachings of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee and the Living Stream Ministry" grows and quarantines "Local Churches not affiliated with All Three of the Teachings of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee and the Living Stream Ministry" then we will need names to distinquish which affiliation. Appropo (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No, this IS original research. You completely misunderstand everything. First of all, there is a teaching in this group that there is only one UNIVERSAL church and this is it, but for practical reasons, it is organized geographically into "local" expressions. Here, "local" is an adjective.

Hence, the name might be more appropriately rendered "the church." Remember, the word comes from the Greek word that means "gathering." It is the denominations that have turned an adjective, "gathering," into a noun.Ryoung122 22:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

One universal church: the Catholic Church organized into local expressions, "the church". So clearly this is the local expression of the Church affiliated with the teachings of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee and the Living Stream Ministry and not the Pope.

"Gathering" is a verb. Unless it is "the gathering" in which case it is a noun, like "the church". If it is an adjective as you suggest then what does, "I will build my church" refer to. It is a noun. Now, if you got confused and meant that local is the adjective as you suggest in your first paragraph, then you are right, but "local" is not in the Bible and hence what does Greek have to do with it? The denominations have not turned an adjective into a noun, they have added an adjective to the noun, e.g. Methodist Church, Baptist Church, or Lee/Nee/LSM/BB Church. So what is referred to here is (capital or not) the church of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee and LSM, not just the church, which includes all Christians. If by the grace of God a gathering is meeting as the church, then it is. If it requires adjectives for additional affiliation, then it is not. The lion doesn't need a name or declaration to be a lion. It just is. And so if the LC of WL/WN/LSM/BB is the church of the living God, then it defies description of its order of worship. Appropo (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

So I'm not going to throw myself into this debate, but I do need to ask what the point is. Is this conversation at all related to improving the article? I don't see how it is, so all I'm seeing here is a violation of WP:NOTFORUM. KhalfaniKhaldun 22:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, khalfani_khaldun. Now would you take a look at the Wiki article: An Autobiography of a Person in the Spirit and tell me if it is a proper Wiki article. Isn't it all original research? I think it should be deleted, and HopeChrist agrees with me sort of even though he wrote it. Can you do the dirty work to delete it since I have done the discussion and reviewed the rules and felt it was against the Wiki rules. I tried to put a Speedy deletion note on it but HopeChrist said I did it wrong. Can you take care of it for me. If you do I will swear off of original research "So help me God." (once more for the record, the gathering is not an adjective.) Appropo (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this shouldn't even be debated. Also, if we look in the Bible, we see the "Church in Ephesus," Church in Smyrna," "Church in Jerusalem"...so there was one church in every city. Opponents labelled this group the "local" church because they didn't want to take a name...the whole point is to keep the only name given in the Bible, the church....Ryoung122 03:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Original research. Original research. Please stop it. Appropo (talk) 03:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Similarity of relationship to The Move (Sam Fife)

There are apparent similarities to this group and The Move (Sam Fife). Although I don't have time it might be worth looking into the similarities. Appropo (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Effectiveness?

Instead of a fiat decision rating this as an unimportant religion, I suggest you use an objective standard such as the number of members. One source says this group has 500 churches in the Philipenes alone, but doesn't say if that means 500 home churches or larger meetings. Perhaps doing a Religion census, asking each for a count would provide a better basis for decisions. 75.139.214.136 (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Seconded about not making arbitrary decisions/assumptions of importance. I'm not sure what the membership threshhold is for "importance," but there are at the very least easily tens of thousands of people who believe in these teachings worldwide. Sizes of local churches vary tremendously from being small meetings in homes to having thousands of members in a single metropolitan area. These teachings may have a higher prevalence or profile in certain areas of the world like Taiwan for example. I'm not interested in editing this page - just wanted to add that information. Drenched (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Group or Sect?

Please consider the following definitions applicable to the Local Churches: Sect: a small close-knit group with strongly held views that are sometimes regarded as extreme by the majority, Group: a number of people sharing something in common such as an interest, belief, or political aim. From these definitions the description that best fits the Local Churches is sect because the Local Churches are close-knit, have strongly held views and are sometimes regarded as extreme by the majority. The word group is too weak. They don't just share something in common such as a group of people with blue eyes. Appropo (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested edits from the Main Page

These two requests were on the main page. I've moved them here so that other editors can decide what to do with them.

Please visit the Christian Research Institute's YouTube playlist entitled "The Local Church" where CRI reviews the Local Church in detail.

Link to "The Local Church" by CRInstitute: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL793DA547CA28A410

Revanneosl (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Overly Casual Logic Regarding Chinese Language in Etymology

Under the Etymology heading there are some unreferenced and highly questionable speculation about the Chinese language. It reads: "Chinese language lacks capitalization and plural form while Chinese terms of Christianity were all translated from other languages. It is, technically, more difficult for Chinese-speakers to refer to their churches." I am aware this article is in its early stages of research, however, this particular section pushes the limits of ethnocentrism too far.

To say Chinese "lacks" capitalization implies that Chinese can only be conceived of in relation to languages which do have capitalization, and that such other languages (English, German etc.) set the standard from which this Church will view Chinese. It also comes across as irrelevant to whatever is trying to be expressed here. To state that Chinese Christian terms have "all" been translated from other languages is too broad and lazy a statement. First, what is a "Christian term", and what makes a language pure versus derived from some other language? The style of expression, furthermore, hides some ethnocentric bias towards languages which are not Chinese. Finally, there is again some ethnocentric bias in the absurd idea that expressing ideas in one language can be more "difficult" depending on what language one speaks, and also that the difficulty level is determined by some non-Chinese language. Baumgaertner (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Local churches (affiliation)/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.

This article can be one of the good articles provided it properly cite all its content. There is still a need for more neutral third party citations and quotations to be included. But unfortunately, not much information is available besides CT magazine articles, and few other christian organizational reviews. However, those have been already included in the current article. Thanks.HopeChrist (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 15:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Bias

Right off the bat in the introduction of this article, I'm seeing short blurbs that seem to imply a strong bias against this organization. E.g. : "which is ironic given local church history" and "even though according to this interpretation all Christians in a locality constitute the church in that locality." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tayzimm (talk • contribs) 05:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Move to Local churches

I suggest that this article should be moved to Local churches. Sarcelles (talk) 11:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The word "affiliation" is confusing and is actually misleading. HopeChrist (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

How about "Local churches (movement)"? Agree that "affiliation" doesn't make a whole lot of sense; however, if we just call it "Local churches", that raises disambiguation issues with local church. I believe Local churches (movement) can resolve both these issues.Joren (talk) 10:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Or how about "The Lord's Recovery"? - that may be better than my earlier suggestion. Joren (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

We have already come over this ground. The reason for affiliation is that the LSM makes it so. Others have the name local church and won the right to do so through a lawsuit. Also, it local church is commonly used to discribe a church in ones locality. Once local church is used to describe those affiliated with the LSM, then one would have to capitalize it, but the LSM objects to that. If it is not an affiliation, then how do you describe its practices. This whole approach is full of problems.Appropo (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not alwasy follow an organisation's own preferred capitalisation in naming articles. "Local Churches" (capitalised) was acknowledged by LSM in their title of A Brief Response to “An Open Letter to the Leadership of Living Stream Ministry and the ‘Local Churches’”. I agree that Local Churches is not sufficiently clear for disambiguation, so I propose to move this article to Local Churches (affiliation). Alternatively, Local Church (affiliation) as the singular is also used in WP:RS e.g. [1], not to mention the related article Local Church controversies – in the end the two page names ought to match. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi!

I would like to suggest that we move this page to a page entitled "The Local Churches" and use the term the "local churches" in the body of text. I feel that having "affiliation" in the title is half a step from complete ambiguity but half a step away from full disambiguation. It seems that many think this title is misguiding or misleading. If we are going to have a disambiguation page anyway then to include the word "affiliation" in the title seems redundant and it is not consistent with other related pages.

Sosthenes12 (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Blended Co-workers

Sorry, but this is funny. What does that mean. Seems this group makes up their own words just to be different. Rather than call Nee and Lee the popes, and "the blended co-workers" as the cardinals, they make up these terms. The phrase reminds one of the tiger blended into butter by running in circles described in the children's book, "Lttle Black Sambo". Elsewhere they are refered to as "the blended brothers". I'm afraid the practices of this group/sect have as little to do with the actual Bible verses. Most of the references are from their own works and by their own members. Not much can be done about that until some real scholars do an in-depth study.Appropo (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree that this is a funny term. A generic reference to brothers who serve in an oversight capacity should never become an official title or position. That said, I wouldn't go so far as to call anyone "pope" or "cardinals", terms made up by the Catholic Church, which are not found in the Bible and have nothing to do with the Protestant Church or Evangelical Christianity, of which any local church is a part. Also not found in the Bible are tigers blending butter. From this article it does in fact seem that their practices and truths, as presented by their own works, are entirely based on the Bible. This is confirmed by the very in-depth study conducted by real scholars and referenced in this article. I'm new to this discussion and look forward to giving a fair look at the truths and Bible references provided, as well as the research by these very reputable scholars. Then I'll decide for myself what I think about this group. DanielGranado (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)DanielGranado

The Plymouth Brethren Connection

I have removed the box that categorizes the local churches as a branch of the Exclusive Brethren. I have also edited some of the content under the section entitled, "The Plymouth Brethren Connection." Watchman Nee and the local churches in China never considered themselves to be a part of the "Exclusive Brethren" fellowship. The local churches in China received the believers from that group when they visited China in 1932. Nee then visited them in the UK, the USA, and Canada in 1933. The Brethren objected to Nee's "breaking bread" with T. Austin-Sparks' group in London and with Thornton Stearns' family (former missionary to China) in Hartford. He did not inform the Brethren of his action (most likely because he knew their attitude), and it was later discovered by coincidence. After a series of letters between London, New York, and Shanghai, the Brethren sent the assembly in Shanghai a strongly worded communication disavowing any connection between them. From the Chinese side, however, there was never any consideration that they had affiliated themselves (or wished to do so) with the "Exclusive Brethren" fellowship centered in New York and London. This is borne by the letters, which are available online. To state that the local churches are a branch of Exclusive Brethrenism based on this blip in the 1930s is an overstatement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Changeful (talk • contribs) 23:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• That is debatable. From 1930 to 1935 he and the Exclusive Brethren DID consider each other to be counterparts which had developed independently. The World Christian Encyclopaedia also classifies the Local Churches as one of the many Exclusive Brethren groups.

• Your edits to the paragraph were good —I go along with them. Removing the Infobox, however, is not the way to go — most Christian denominations have infoboxes (and those that don't soon will). Perhaps we could say something like "Plymouth Brethren influence" etc. David Cannon (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• • I have removed the references to the "merger" and "split" from the Raven-Taylor brethren in the infoxbox. The interaction between the local churches in China and the Taylor group is historical, as documented in the relevant section in the article. It is an overstatement, however, to characterize that interaction as a "merger" and a "split." There is significant brethren influence in the local churches, but this influence cannot be characterized as a "merger" and "split." I have looked up the reference to the local churches in the [i]World Christian Encyclopedia[/i], and what I find is a reference to the Little Flock being "similar in the looseness of its structure to the Plymouth Brethren." It does not say that the Little Flock is a branch of the brethren or anything similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.140.2 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Sorry, this comment was made by me. Changeful (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Denominational Infobox

I see that some editors don't like the denominational infobox. Okay, go ahead and remove it - on the page of EVERY denomination. Otherwise, leave it alone. Whether the Local Churches ARE or ARE NOT a "denomination" is POV either way. If you regard a "denomination" as meaning a group of churches that has a governing body and other institutions, the Local Churches are not a denomination in that sense. On the other hand, if you regard a "denomination" as a group of churches that have a collective identity and/or as a network bound together by relationships, they are a denomination in that sense. Wikipedia uses the term loosely. The Open Brethren and some of the smaller Bapitst and Pentecostal groups are in a similar situation. To users like Abishai, PLEASE DO NOT just delete a whole infobox. I understand that you may have some relationship with the Local Churches, and I can certainly understand the strong feelings that believers have over religiously sensitive questions. But Wikipedia has to take a neutral point of view - it cannot simply say that the Local Churches are not a denomination just because they don't define themselves as one. David Cannon (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If the box is to remain it must at least be accurate and informative. To classify the local churches as Protestant is severely misleading as Watchman Nee himself strongly decried Protestantism:

"We do not recognize Catholicism! We do not recognize Protestantism! The way of Catholicism and Protestantism is absolutely different from our way. Our way is the service of the church."

Nee, Watchman (1994), Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 3) Vol. 51: Church Affairs, Anaheim, California: Living Stream Ministry, p. 48-49

Whether or not the local churches are still aptly classified as Protestant, or a denomination, despite their teachings explicitly denying such, that is POV. We agree on this point. Therefore, if neutrality is to be maintained, and I certainly agree that it should be, applying classifications rigidly is not constructive, especially when Wikipedia itself "uses the term loosely." I'm changing the classification to "Christian" as was used here . Abishai 300 (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The way you've got it arranged now seems fairly neutral —I can go along with it:-) David Cannon (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

POV statement removed

Another editor inserted the following comment into the article as an explanation: "Like Nee, Witness Lee was third-generation Christian|This does not jive with the claim that Nee converted in Fuzhou--if that means "converted to Christianity" he's obviously not a third-generation Christian".

I have removed the comment, because it is POV. Different Christian denominations/traditions/schools of thought etc. understand "conversion" in very different ways. Roman Catholics use the term "conversion" to mean joining the Catholic Church, whatever their previous affiliation may have been. Many other Christians - possibly including the editor who inserted the above comment - take it to mean adopting the Christian faith as an adult. Many evangelicals, myself included, regard it as individual and personal. In my own case, my ancestors - especially on my mother's side - have been Christians for as far back as I can trace. But if people ask me when my conversion was, I tell them that it happened when I was 13 years old. That was when I understood the basics of the cross, redemption, etc. and their claims on my life for the first time. Lee may well have been a third-generation Christian, but may also have had a personal "conversion" experience, as I did. Given the influence the Local Churches received from the Plymouth Brethren, that is highly likely. David Cannon (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Add "Little Flock" as a synonym in the lead

Many, many sources call this affiliation "Little Flock". In fact, Wickeri says that Little Flock is more common in Western sources. I propose we add it to the lead as an alternative name. Not proposing a move at this point.

I would boldly make this change myself, but Abishai 300 reverted me a while back, saying it is "not widely used enough". However, I keep running into sources that call it "Little Flock" all the time. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

There some problems associated with equating the local churches to the name “Little Flock.” First, it was a name given by outsiders and not adopted by the group itself. It came to be accepted only by those who remained following the persecutions in the 1950s when they accepted the designation after being subsumed under the Three-Self Patriotic Movement. There are many sources that indicate that during the time of Watchman Nee, it was not accepted, including:

• Angus Kinnear, Against the Tide, rev. ed. (Eastbourne, England: Kingsway Communications, 2005), 140.
• Bob Laurent, Watchman Nee: Man of Suffering (Ulrichsville, OH: Barbour Publishing, 1998), 84.
• Jennifer Lin, Shanghai Faithful (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017), 131-132.
• The Collected Works of Watchman Nee, Volume 18: Scriptural Messages (2) (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1992), 320-321.

Second, the name “Little Flock” is not and historically has not been used for the more than four thousand local churches outside of China. This is what I meant by “not widely used enough.” It is neither as comprehensive a term chronologically nor geographically.

Third, within China the name “Little Flock” is often used today to differentiate between those remnants of congregations that aligned themselves with the TSPM and “the local churches” that follow the ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. These local churches may or may not be registered.

For these reasons, it is best to treat “Little Flock” as a matter related to the history of the local churches in China and not as a synonym. Authors such as Wickeri, who has had a long association with the TSPM, write from the TSPM’s perspective concerning China. Abishai 300 (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I see, Abishai 300. It isn't as straightforward as I thought. Perhaps you could expand the article with some of the information you bring up. Currently it just says "Some outsiders referred to the group as the 'Little Flock' as they sang from a hymnal entitled Hymns for the Little Flock", which ignores most of the nuances you point out. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The complexity of the topic and the need to clarify aforesaid nuances is why I'd rather not treat it any further. The amount of explanation needed would certainly bring concerns of undue weight in my mind. What is currently there, while scant, is at least factual. Abishai 300 (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand that. Perhaps, then, we should split Little Flock (affiliation) to a separate standalone article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Tagging Explanation and Concern Regarding Numerous Recent Edits

For the last couple of months the quality of several articles related to the local churches (henceforth LC) has, in my opinion, degraded. It is expected that these articles would evolve over time but the large number of recent edits by strictly anonymous and new users all have a number of problems, some trivial and some that significantly undermine the both the utility and veracity of these articles. Furthermore, the behavior of some of the editors introducing this content has made collaboration all but impossible. This behavior includes:

• Ignoring concerns raised by other editors by reinserting content with grammatical errors and other issues [2][3][4]

• Accusing others of edit warring. [5]

• Accusing others of vandalism for removing edits with justification. [6]

• Ignoring multiple requests to utilize the talk page, which is the appropriate way to resolve issues or seek consensus [7] [8]

• Appealing to nonexistent consensus while forcing in contested content [9]

The purpose here is not to attack any editors but to show a recent ongoing violation of Wikipedia’s collaborative spirit. I hope that we can begin to redress that here.

As for the edits themselves, a majority of them have significant problems with:

• Original Research - This edit attempts to contrast LC belief with that of evangelicalism based on a blog on Cru’s website [10]. Not only does it not employ a single, proper secondary source, it both ignores and contradicts existing scholarly evaluations such as those by Christian Research Institute and Fuller Theological Seminary already cited in the article. Moreover, the theological issues raised are already addressed in the “Local Church controversies” article.

• Undue Weight - A Controversies section was added, but there is already a separate article on that topic, an arrangement that was worked out through appropriate collaboration years ago. Many of the topics covered in that article were reproduced here in a far less complete and balanced way and without proper citation.

• Too much detail - One section was added for Living Stream Ministry and another to discuss conferences and trainings conducted by Living Stream Ministry. There is already an article for Living Stream Ministry, so this material does not belong here. The more such new sections are added, the more imbalanced the article becomes with excessive details regarding periphery topics. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article.

• Lack of proper citation – In this entire edit most of the additions are unsourced and those that are use only primary sources.

• Misrepresentation of cited sources, particularly with potentially controversial topics - The edit says, “Local churches would not use the term persons.” However, I followed the link to the source cited and the word "persons" is indeed used elsewhere in that publication. The entire edit is characterized as an "evangelical critique," but the one source cited as representative of evangelical understanding is not a critique of LC belief.

• Duplicating content - This edit is identical to what was added to Local_churches_(affiliation). Why the duplication? The editor placed this addition at the beginning of the “Theological Controversies” section, ignoring the fact that its assertions are already addressed in the article with appropriate documentation. Prior to the addition, the article seemed to strike a proper balance, which the additional material strongly lacks.

• Copyrighted material from primary sources - Why has there been an insistence on forcing in long quotes pulled from primary sources? How is this encyclopedic? [11] [12]

• POV - Consider the biased wording and POV statements in this edit

• Factual inaccuracies – For example, the changing of “Plymouth Brethren Connection” to “Plymouth Brethren Christian Church Connection” and overriding attempts to revert. The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church did not exist as an entity until 2012. It is but one of many factions of the Exclusive Brethren that trace back to John Nelson Darby. Massimo Introvigne, The Plymouth Brethren (Oxford University Press, 2018)

Some of what has been added misrepresents sources, which can be demonstrated by simply following the citations. Most other edits, to my view, needlessly inflate the articles with block quotes, POV/OR analysis, and exhausting minutiae related to internal LC workings. Some contain errors in grammar, styling, and markup. All of these things compromise these articles as sources of unbiased, properly cited, encyclopedic information. For these reasons I'm tagging these articles and starting this thread so that consensus can be sought as to how to deal with the issues that I and others have raised. These tags shouldn't be removed until some discussion takes place and consensus emerges. -Abishai 300 (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is too much balanced towards local churches. Some one must clear it up. We need a balanced article with that does not promote an organisation. Also the history of local churches is only till 1972. We must include the media reports. The cases in the supreme court. The LA Times article on the storm where Philip Lee was caught etc. Books by John Ingalls and others will be a balance. Can some one edit this article and balance it?Abishai 330 (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree here are some excellent books to quote from:

• Watchman Nee and the Little Flock Movement in Maoist China
• In the wake of New Way
• The thread of Gold
• Speaking the truth in love Ingalls2211 (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

^ Ingalls2211 and Abishai 330 are the same person. This user also has a number of other aliases that have been used to implement the edits described above. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ingalls2211. Attempting to override or subvert the process of building consensus by using multiple accounts is a violation and is against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -Abishai 300 (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

An encyclopedic article about a church should describe its beliefs, its practices, its works, and its history. Wikipedia is not a newspaper Disagreements over matters such as finances and leadership, and opinions of former members are not notable in the sense of lasting duration or having a wide geographic impact. If they are notable, then they belong in another article, and we already have such an article on Local Church controversies. JarOfGems (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I suspected it might be sock puppetry. There exists already a page for local church controversies. Some of these matters have been dealt with there and others can be dealt with there. I would also agree that delving into the minutiae of local church inner workings and certain smaller controversies that are lost on the general reader isn't helpful. Theophilus144 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

In looking through the edit history, it seems that the repeated changes described above ignore years of effort in building consensus. There's also a real contrast in quality between the article as it stood, and the proposed changes which would fall far short of Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and encyclopedic tone. Bfih24 (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Article cleanup

This article needs significant cleanup, a task I hope to undertake in the next few days. There are many citations that are incorrect. It appears that in all of the edits this page has undergone, the connection between many statements and their supporting references have been broken. I am mindful of the comments under the "Tagging Explanation and Concern Regarding Numerous Recent Edits" Talk page topic on this subject as well as the decision made some years ago to separate the issue of controversies onto a separate page. I will do my best not to introduce any imbalance in the article and hope that a more solid basis for this page can be secured for moving forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiuseppeVenerdi (talk • contribs) 19:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to Discuss July 2020!

Hi,

I noticed multiple new editors have started editing this page and was concerned that some of these recent edits may not be totally in line with Wikipedia's value of maintaining a neutral point of view and with Wikipedia's value of using sources appropriately. Of course, getting started on Wikipedia can certainly be a challenge and getting a hang of all of the details of how we operate can be difficult but this is a community and we are all here to help! I have invited some newly come editors to discuss their proposed changes as I assume they were made in good faith but perhaps the manner in which the edits were made can be improved. Please feel free to use this new section to discuss these changes or to create your own sections. Happy editing!

—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 06:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The pattern of recent edits and reverts by Philip lee daystar, T.Goetz germany, Ronkangasq, and ChrisWildeLee as well as the choice of user names which all impersonate local church figures is consistent with that of Ingalls2211 who was banned for sock puppetry back in December. It would seem another investigation is in order. A common problem with this article is the adding of substantive, potentially controversial, or extraneous content without proper citation and then completely ignoring the concerns of other editors or the use of the talk page. Consequently, this talk page seems to have devolved into more of a place to bring attention to mischief rather than a place to collaborate. I hope that its function can be restored to collaboration! -Abishai 300 (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)