Talk:LifeChurch.tv/Archive 1

Comments from 12 August 2005
Many parts of this article, currently, read like non-neutral press release. Eclipsed 20:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC) Several POV copyedits later, I've removed the NPOV tag for the moment. Eclipsed 20:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, someone needs to add controversy/criticism. It sounds like a brochure for the church.

Seriously. I swear to god that I've heard many parts of this article at LifeChurch when I was still being dragged to the place.Number 3 03:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

They run this page like dictators.

Is this an encyclopedia page or an advertisement?
I know some of the people that work there, and I'm sure that they occasionally edit this site so that wikipedia always has a positive look on them. I'm sure this page could be rewritten. It is not NPOV, because it only brings one side to the views on their church. I will tag it myself.172.164.176.190 18:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agreed with your tag and modified the article to include some points of view that I have found on the web regarding life church that are not from them. I also removed the tag after adding that since most of the rest of the article appears to be relatively factual from reading it.

This page is run as if we all live in Syria.

Wikipedia CLEARLY states "...Do not write articles about yourself, your company, or your best friend. " that is what this page is. It is a complete joke.

Gilbertgoose and the other hoodlums that delete all criticisms off of this page prove that this is all just a business, not some kind of Christian group. Never once have any of them mentioned anything about God, Jesus, the bible, Christianity...nothing...just pop culture shows and ad hominem. My point is, with all this, this IS a business, and they are on here writing about it, therefore the hypocrasy continues with them telling me I can not post lifechurchvsiraq.com links on here. If Jesus were alive today, he'd never stop throwing up.


 * 'Shunt11': A few things for you regarding your postings:


 * 1) First, you are asked to sign your name at the end of your posts, which you are not. This makes it difficult to understand where you started and ended your talk.
 * 2) You are asked to Assume Good Faith, which you are not about the editors. You are assuming the worst that they are related to the church.
 * 3) While you may believe that your viewpoint to be valid, the concern is that Wikipedia requires that your post to be written from a Neutral point of view.
 * 4) It is recommended that anything contriversial should be cite and be Verifiable
 * 5) Since you know that your edits are contriversial, you must first attempt to resovle it in the talk pages, do not continue to place your disputed information in. Please look into this more at Edit_war

Before you continue on your course of banter, please know that I am neutral on this matter. Insomuch that I am more interested in the integrity of the wiki process then if something critical is properly presented regarding LifeChurchtv.com Tiggerjay 04:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will reassess what I am doing. I appreciate your honesty.--Shunt11 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC) "

Also regarding "assuming the worst that they are related to the church." forgive me, I was referring to the gilbertgoose character who launched a serious attack on me. He created a page "steve hunt vs. the truth" making fun of things I do and whatnot. He pulled images from my site and commented rudley on them, the details are on the lifechurchvsiraq.com site. The affair made it seem as if Groeschel (who I believe is a good man) was using the Lebanon strategy of sitting back and saying all is good, while a "hezbollah" type situation festers where attacks are launched in the name of the organization. As Robert Fisk said, war is the complete failure of the human spirit and I believe the whole affair here is the same.--Shunt11 21:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Shunt11...I believe that though your intentions may be pure, what you are "implying" in your posts and website is not completely informed and therefore not accurate. I am very familiar with Rick Warren and he openly provided the content of his previous message about war to thousands of pastors around the world to use shortly after the current war began. Rick commonly does this to help other pastors and does not request or require attribution. Therefore...to imply that Pastor Groeschel was inappropriately using Rick Warren's material is simply not accurate. This is actually similar to what Life Church does for other pastors via it's OPEN site. Pastors can use their material and make it their own without any attribution to the author.

Regarding the war...from what I can tell by listening to Life Church's messages (though I have not listened to them all) and from people I know who attend...the church is not a politically vocal organization and seems to have been very neutral and non-vocal regarding the war in Iraq. At least since 2002. I "think" your assertion that Life Church is pro war or actively engaged in the debate is greatly exaggerated and not backed up with sufficient evidence. It appears from your tone of writing and the scary picture collage that you have made the argument a personal attack on Pastor Groeschel and the church and consequently your views don't appear neutral. The neutrality issue is just my opinion, but I imagine others would share it. Appleintheroom 22:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please actually spend some time on the site. You are way off regarding what I have said regarding what Craig did. The problem is not that he used Warren's sermon (I do find it odd that folks say "it's ok to do because a lot of people do it!" all the while LC advertises it's self as unique and different...if that is so, why the hell are you doing what everyone else is doing?!?!?!?) it is that  he very clearly said these things were his ideas and his opinions. Also, if you will look at the clip from a recent sermon where they belittle Bill Clinton (far from one of my favorite people), you'll see that the statement that we should "respect our leaders whether we agree with them are not!" troubles me. He can use Warren's sermon...he can use Shakira songs or read moon pie recipes to the congregation, I dont care. But please, please don't claim that its your original creation! Come on....AND, if you are going to encourage people to critique you, don't give them absolute hell when they do. That is just wrong.--Shunt11 03:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Critics, read this:
This page meets wikipedia neutrality standards and is not an "advertisement" for the church. It contains factual information about the church and good sources are cited (e.g. Associated Press articles). I removed the critical remarks in the intro because there was absolutely no substance and the remarks contained weasel words (e.g. "SOME people criticise the church" ... who are these "some people"???) This teeters on vandalism and doesn't cut it for wikipedia standards. Additionally, the comments were not properly cited (if there are criticisms of the church, you need to provide a link and the link needs to point to a notable, relevant, and credible critic who is qualified to criticise the church--not just Joe Nobody's myspace page). Every organization in the universe has a critic somewhere. So what? Wikipedia articles require NOTABILITY of all information, including notable criticisms, before they can be included in an article. Further, if there are notable, relevant, and credible criticisms of the church by credible and notable critics, then this information belongs in a "criticism" section in the article, not in the article's introduction. The introduction is supposed to give a basic overview of what the article is describing. Please stop editing this article if you haven't read wikipedia official policy and don't know what you are doing. Gilbertggoose 03:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In 2003, Craig Groeschel used Rick Warren's sermon on the first gulf war to give a sermon about the second. No mention of it being Warren's was made, and phrases like "remember, these are MY OPINIONS" were made by Groeschel, along with a very strong endorsement for the illegal and brutal war on Iraq. A website was created critiquing Groeschel's talk, going through it point by point and all of the similarities to Warren's sermon. The page was created ONLY after the page creator was told by Groeschel (attending the church..remember, its a very "personal place!" therefore "was told by" can be justified here) that lifechurch "welcomes criticism...in fact, encourage criticism!!!". Also, when the author of lifechurchvsiraq.com heard that, it was during a talk when Groeschel invoked five "God told me's" and therefore found it justifiable that while maybe God wasnt telling the page creator to go and make lifechurchvsiraq.com, that at least Craig Groeschel was telling him to make it...theres a big different but at least in the page authors case verification is 100%, no "faith" involved. Lifechurchvsiraq.com is not contraversial, it is not opinion. It is straight fact and the cowards who come on this page can not handle it and constantly remove the link. For the most part, it is this boy who goes by "gilbertgoose" who actually made a website "Steve Hunt vs. the truth" in retaliation to the lifechurchvsiraq.com page, using ad hominem attacks and constant invocations of pop culture that confused the author greatly, as he is not particularly interested in all of that bee bop garbage.

--Shunt11 21:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Major rework required
It appears that this article may need a major rework done to fix some issues which have been addressed, and also to make it similar to existing WP articles. This does appear to have somewhat of an advertisement & PR type feel to it which can be edited to be more appropriate for this format. I do believe, however that this church would meet the notability requirements of WP so it should say, but it does require a lot of work. But this is not to say that "fans" should be editing this page either, since the trivia which would be added would not increase the articles value. Tiggerjay 06:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My earlier discussion..
I started the earlier discussion that this page was an advertisement. I also realize that I didn't say what I meant to say, and do not want anyone to take offense.


 * 1. I didn't mean to use the word "advertisement" (some might think I meant propaganda) like I did; I meant it was more like a pamphlet for the church.
 * 2. When I said "I know some of the people who work there," I meant simply that they were computer and internet saavy and my guess was that they edited this page themselves. I have no bias against lifechurch.tv or its employees/pastors.
 * 3. I said "This page could be rewritten," I simply wanted a more real, down-to-earth look on the church from NPOV, not stuff someone copied off of their website. If there is criticism for the church (and there is, I doubt anyone could say it or they are perfect...[1 John 1:10]), than it should be on here, but not in a manner of demeaning the church, but rather in a professional, well-written, factualy sourced, way.

I am a moron at wikipedia rules and what-not, thank you Tiggerjay for backing me up! (yes I know my IP address changed...)63.215.29.113 15:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of controversy
I can't believe I made a wikipedia account purely to say this.

But, on the game called 'Second Life,' my friends and I just suffered what could be termed as a 'raid' by multiple apparent members of this 'lifechurch' who, after attacking us with 'weapons' in our 'homes' in the game, they then dropped advertisements for "http://thewarriorlives.com." I'm not adding this to the main page or anything, as it's purely anecdotal and there's always the "one group does not represent our entire faith" thing. However, it's real, it did happen, it's probably happened to a whole load of other people.

And worst of all, it appeared planned, more than likely as some kind of 'viral marketing technique' Of course, none that I say or summise is verifiable - yet, but I'm sure if someone was inclined to do some digging they'd find something of interest to add to the article.

Nomadanine (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Nomadanine

Clean up
This entire article needs to be cleaned up. There's a citation that leads to nowhere, and both of the references in the "Affiliation" section go to dead pages. Additionally, the history needs to be better wrote. It sounds like a list of their achievements. Burnination (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)