Talk:People of Praise/Archive 1

There are headings at the top of the page
Just wondering if you notredame and u of m i.p.'s and have noticed the headings at the top of this page. Seems not. Perhaps you should consider doing so.Christopheremerson 05:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This article needs more objectivity
Dear People of Praise, this is Wikipedia and Wikipedia sites really should not read like advertisements. At times, this article does. I respect that you are excited about your faith but please learn to respect the objectivity rules.D1xrfgf3 21:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What if we added a criticism section
Alright, so I don't think that one source from a former member is enough evidence to color the entire article. Also, from the information provided here I wouldn't say that the People of Praise meets the criteria of a cult. But since it is clear that some former members and others have criticism regarding the group, we could add a section where well sourced objections could be added. Also making it clear who is saying what. Any thoughts? Danbold 17:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletions
There are very few characteristics of the occult that the People of Praise does not share. This article is currently very biased and overall includes a lack of sourcing. I can understand the lack of sourcing being due to the overall lack of verifiably objective material out there to source from. Most of the sourcing thus far appears to come from individuals personal experience with the cult. This being so I would appreciate suggestions and reasons why the following section, which results from my own recent personal experience with the cult, has been deleted. The following section was added to the Criticism section:

"Others have asserted that the People of Praise is actually a cult crafted by Satan in the pits of hell. This latter view encompasses the thoughts of many former members who have recently left. The recent exits stem from a prophesy that was received some years ago within the People of Praise. The prophesy claimed that the People of Praise was to build 200 cities in 40 years. The so called prophesy has been turned into a huge growth campaign by the leadership. Many members have sought to find out when exactly this prophesy took place. No dates are given by the leadership and inquiries into the prophesy are usually followed by lofty explanations on the nature of prophesy that basically circularly protect the so called prophesy from being shown false." Holyghostofgod 02:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Because, umm, it's unsourced, as you said. It's also an incredibly lofty claim to be made without sources. Any unverifiable statement can be removed by anyone. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

People of Praise, a cult crafted by Satan in the pits of hell? And you wonder why this criticism was deleted? Come on. This is an extremely serious accusation that is usually undeserved no matter what it is directed at.

Clarification (I hope)
I apologize for not making myself more clear the first time. Let me explain what I meant when I said, "Also making it clear who is saying what." Since this is an encyclopedic work its important to note where sources are coming from and in what context they were written. Adrian's criticisms were probably well founded, but they do not reflect the state of the community today. He left over twenty-five years ago. I, a current member of the community, have never encountered any of the pressures he writes about.

As for being released from the covenant, while it is true that members are granted approval to leave, there have been members who simply leave, without seeking approval. So in one sense you need approval, in another you don't. Danbold 06:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I, a recent former member, have experienced the same things that Adrian writes about.Holyghostofgod 02:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Trinity POV
Parts of the Trinity Schools section are beginning to sound more like criticism than NPOV, namely dating & morning prayer. JustinW 19:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you going to argue that it's untrue? It's all true, and supplementary to the already-there agreed-upon information.  -Tropicality (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha!! Are you serious?? Haven't you seen the heading at the top of the page which reads: "this article reads like an advertisement"?? Oh wait, you deleted that.  Hm.  I'm with Tropicality on this one. d1xrfgf3 16:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Being that it is taboo within the POP community for members to openly criticize or talk negatively about their group, I can understand the difficulty that current members are having with seeing criticism and other points that can be taken as negative. But, I would like to remind all of you POP members that this is an encyclopedic work and not a means of advertisement and evangelizing. Holyghostofgod 12:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

a renewed discussion, please?
I am not a POP member, nor an ex-POP member, but have a wealth of experience with the POP and Trinity Schools because my parents are covenanted members of the POP (for around 35 years now). My sister is underway. I am not going to reveal which branch my family is a part of. I grew up in the POP, a part of the inner circle. I also graduated from a Trinity School. I considered joining the POP in my senior year of high school. I was baptized in the Spirit. My opinions have changed, however, and I decided against having any association with the organization. I am not against the POP, nor for it. Perhaps I can be of help.

1. The points of view which have been expounded here are acceptable, but your discussion has fizzled.

2. Pro-POP: It is clear that your wiki page is not neutral. I am surprised that you have responded to any posted criticism by deleting it; if anything, you should instead encourage rational and well-supported criticism of your organization in order to learn more about it and improve it. You should be practically inviting people to challenge you...if your belief in the POP is strong, criticism does not matter to you. The more the merrier. If your beliefs are wavering, criticism can be a valuable tool to prevent people from making a mistake: either joining a group they do not belong in, or leaving the group for bad reasons or in a moment of passion. It is called dialogue.

2.1 Your citations of the POP and City Builders websites are insufficient because they do not adequately explain the reasoning behind the Community's decisions--e.g. the Roles of Men and Women section explains how the POP organizes men and women into specific activities. The logical reaction to your statements, copy-pasted from the POP website and not foundational documents such as "The Spirit and Purpose of the People of Praise", lead your opponents to view your organization as sexist.

3. Anti-POP: It does in fact matter who someone cites; if the source is a member, non-member, or ex-member, their subjective opinions will manifest themselves in their speech and writing, thereby affecting the objective truth--sometimes substantially.

3.1 Although it may be true that the wiki page is biased for the POP, the key is to introduce enough well-placed and supported criticism such that a balance is achieved. Acting alone, those against the POP are also incapable of writing a truly objective piece.

4. Regarding the wiki page, it is clear that the criticism section is weak. It doesn't even address the issues raised in the preceding sections.

4.1 The Trinity Schools section has the same problems. It appears to have been edited by students.

4.11 Such controversial issues as male-female social relations seem to be misguided. Trinity advocates argue that such relationships are not discouraged, only best fostered in groups as opposed to one-on-one. Anti-Trinity individuals argue that the students are oppressed and led towards social incompetentcy. The debate is not about which of these sides is right; Trinity is a private organization which by law may establish its own internal regulations and guidelines. Parents play a critical role with their personal interpretations of Trinity/POP rules. Their conservative or liberal enforcement of these rules will greatly affect the individual student's opinions of Trinity and the POP. The discussion should be about communication. How do Trinity and the POP fail to properly convey their interests to Trinity families? Where do parents and students improperly interpret the communications coming from Trinity and the POP?

Please excuse any grave misinterpretations of my own in this post; I am writing in haste without proofreading. Just to let you know. Thanks.

Aufklaerung 04:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Aufklaerung

Fixing the article
This was the first article I've nominated for deletion that has not reached a consensus. I do not think it is helpful for editors to nominate articles for AfD's if they are not willing to do some work on them.

This article is in need of some serious editing. The first thing I plan on doing is going through and deleting all unsourced material that is currently challenged or could be. According to WP:V "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

Of course, other editors are encouraged to add the material back to the article if they can source it. After addressing concerns about un-cited sources I plan on addressing neutrality issues. Theredhouse7 21:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. School is finishing up soon, so I will be able to help as well. Aufklaerung 01:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to edit the article to make it sound more neutral. My first reading of it was that it was a promo article for POP, to which I belong. I was somewhat embarrassed. I have tried to use terms that might be more readily understandable and to capitalize proper names to reduce confusion. I am VERY open to ongoing dialogue as to how to make this more accurate and neutral. Like any group, we often believe our own hype and use terminology that hinders genuine dialogue and mutual understanding. Colin LaVergne

Question
is people of praise a cult? 147.53.135.86 20:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)anonymous


 * Some would say yes, some would say no. The group doesn't define itself as one, although others think so.  -Tropicality 05:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahem. . . As someone who knows the group fairly well, this is my response. If a friend or family member of mine were considering becoming a member or even going to one of their prayer meetings, I would strongly advise against it, for the sake of their psychological health.  d1xrfgf3 16:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As someone who also knows the group quite well, I would say the answer is decidedly no. The People of Praise places a strong emphasis on making decisions in freedom, and it is very simple for a member to leave, particularly if they are underway. If you are thinking about joining the People of Praise, or are wondering about a friend or family member who is involved in it, I would suggest that you pay most attention to what you observe yourself. If you are scared, leave, but no one will make you stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demiccoli (talk • contribs)


 * Let me clarify: I guess I could be punished by my school or whatever, but then again, I'm basically anonymous on here. I'm not a member, but I know many, again, attend their school, and have been to several prayer meetings.  Although the group's members are officially members of many different Christian denominations, ninety percent being Roman Catholic, it seems that the members are more involved with POP beliefs, activities, and meetings moreso than their own churches.  The group has meetings every week, and, often, members will meet more often than that.  Children of group members are basically indoctrinated into the group, and are generally forced/coerced into attending group functions until the age of eighteen, at which age many children leave.  The group is very defensive about their beliefs, and will not be wrong by any means.  I could go on for a while here though.  Any more specific questions you care to ask?  -Tropicality (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Tropicality, did you know that Trinity has a contract agreement with their students parents that they will not attempt to indoctrinate them into the POP? So, I don't think you should worry about gettting into trouble, if anything Trinity Schools can get into trouble for trying to recruit from its student body. Also, you make good points about the psychological damage brought on to children of members. I am currenlty working with a number of individuals and have heard numberous testimonies of those who are recovering from their childhood experiences with the group. Holyghostofgod 08:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The contract agreement for Trinity teachers who are ALREADY members of People of Praise does state that if they leave the community while they are still teachers, doing so is grounds for termination. User:Tarahumara 00:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As someone who has recently left the People of Praise I strongly disagree with the statement that it is easy to leave. Only someone who has never left or never been involved can say it is so easy. Leaving the POP was one of the hardest decisions I have ever made. Obviously, no one explicitly or physically holds you into the covenant or the group. The People of Praise is much too intelligent for that. Rather the control to keep members in comes more subtly, usually through headship, teachings, leaders or other members. This is done by placing a fear in the devil or a fear that one is going against the will of God by leaving. The POP teaches that it is a people chosen by God. This is what God is doing in the world and now you want to leave?


 * Furthermore, the People of Praise is what is called a Bible cult or Christian Cult. Its physically harmless but orthodoxically heretical and has great potential for psychological harm. Placed on the continuum of Bible cults I would say POP would be in the least harmful classification. 128.101.254.98 08:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is another link to some personal experiences people have had with the group. http://9of.us/?p=25  Be free!  Our apologies if any terminology is vague.. please feel free to ask for clarification.  JustinW 05:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok so I don't really know all that much about the People of Praise, but it was involved a lot with a Group Called the Word of God, that I know a lot about. The Word of God was not "orthodoxically heretical" but did suffer some of the same allegations of psychological abuse. I wonder what about people of priase do you find "orthodoxically heretical?" This could help me detrmine if this critique also applies to The Word of God community. BillyKangas 16:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a link that may help you. http://drstone.proboards67.com/index.cgi Holyghostofgod 16:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many definitions of what constitutes a cult. From Wikipedia's article on cults, here is one that is most germaine to this discussion. "A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgement, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of [consequences of] leaving it, etc) designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community." 8 By this definition, People of Praise has in some times and places acted like a cult. Excessive reliance on the leadership is currently acknowlegded as having been a problem in the past. But what is most remarkable about this definition is that it could also apply to some Catholic and Protestant Churches in terms of how some people in them respond to the mission or leadership. E.g. Catholics have been told countless times that leaving the Church puts their salvation in question, or that private interpretations of Scripture are not to be trusted. Evangelicals have a history of encouraging people to forsake their families who don't understand the Gospel to follow Christ, maybe even to leave the country for mission work abroad. And that is the crux of the problem. Two people can experience the same life in People of Praise and have two very different reactions. For one it is a source of confusion, guilt, shame, bondage, etc. and for the other person, it is a source of life and freedom. So I think it behooves us to be careful how we throw around the term 'cult' when applied to People of Praise or any other group. There is no question that many people have found community life to be oppresive. There is no question that many people have found community life to be freedom. Submitted by Colin LaVergne, sometimes internal critic, but still a current member of People of Praise.

Content that could be added, needs sources
So, in addition to the dispute regarding the material from Adrian Reimers, there are other areas of this article that require work. At the moment, it is a pretty incomplete picture of the topic. Here are some ideas for things that it would be helpful to find sources for and contribute:


 * Activity in charismatic conferences in the 70's
 * Publishing (Greenlawn Press, Vine & Branches)
 * Explanation of how exactly various movements(charismatic, liturgical, ecumenical, and cursillo) contributed to the formation of the community
 * Baptism in the Holy Spirit
 * Further explanation of terms (headship, underway, household, covenant, etc.)
 * Growth, how did it get from 29 to 3,000?

Danbold 19:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I, Adrian Reimers, am surprised to see that the my "More that the Devil's Due" piece is cited and nothing else. Were I citing something by me, I would have chose my earlier piece, "Covenant Community, a Failed Promise," also published in Cultic Studies Journal. This piece gives more history, as well as some of my criticisms. I also have written a more thoroughly documented critique, NOT RELIABLE GUIDES, which appears on my website: http://www.nd.edu/~areimers/Covenant%20Communities.htm. This might prove to be a source for future editing of this article on POP. Of course, these pieces are rather critical of the organization. On the other hand, in writing them I have sought to be truthful and have documented as much as I could. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.121.245 (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Article
Yay! I'm all about deletion of this article. I've been trying to edit this page for about six months and any time I do, whatever I edit gets re-edited by POP members within about 6 minutes. This has been very frustrating. There is absolutely NO neutrality to this article at all! -Also, Aufklaerung- you make some good points. Why don't you edit it yourself??? d1xrfgf3 14:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I second the notion to scrap this article and start over. This has been a bunch of bull since I started editing here. We get to the point where we almost have a sense of neutrality and then a new POP member comes along with no idea what wikipedia is about and starts making changes. Whoever has been messing with the membership section, please stop, your efforts are like a fiction writer not a encyclopedic objective minded writer. Holyghostofgod 17:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that instead of deleting this article, you ask the Wikipedia powers that be to restrict the ability to edit the page, due to it's disputed neutrality? I have no major qualms with the way the page is being presented. Necessary disclaimer, however: Adrian Reimers is my father.--Reimero (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Peopleofpraise.jpg
Image:Peopleofpraise.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

POP Prophecy
Can we get some clarification on when the propecy was recieved within the community? The POP literature now entails a contradiction. The current issue of Vine and Branches states 2005, Nick Holavaty on citybuilder.org states 2006, and the wonderful POP wiki page currently says 2003. What's the deal? This is important for Christians to know so we can be for sure of what year it is the POP will go down as false prophets. Thank you. Holyghostofgod 07:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Or can we just cut to the chase and proclaim the deception, distortion and abduction of God's Word that the POP is? Holyghostofgod 04:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually they largely do a good job of being non-dogmatic, open to all denominations, and generally vanilla flavored Christianity, with a few notable exceptions. Although a large percentage of the organization is Catholic they do have a fair mix of everything else as well. 166.189.221.249 (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Might I add some biblical support to qualify the above statement:


 * "If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it." Duet. 18:22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.112.182 (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
I've editted the article abit for neutrality, just a couple sentences at the beginning and changed some wording near the end. I believe the article is neutral enough to meet to Wikipedia standards. If we could get an unbiased opinion (i.e. someone who isn't a PoP member) to review the article for neutrality, then we should be able to take that disputed tag off, I think. -KriticKill (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding??? I think with the added external links and after the criticism section has been developed to cover the various areas of the POP such as headship, ecumenism, etc. and the ambiguity is taken out of the language then we can talk about taking off the neutrality tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.9.201 (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That actually falls under article expansion, not neutrality. Besides the only good way to add to the criticism section is to talk to a PoP insider, preferably a coordinator or a branch head. There are few unbiased accounts of the PoP, and very little in the way of literature regarding them. Most of what does exist regarding or referencing them, by unbiased (or potentially unbiased) sources, is found in references and chapters of books on the Charismatic Renewal, Azusa Street revival, and the Pentacostalism/Discipleship movements. Still searching for any books/articles specifically targetting the PoP in any form or fashion. In a word, they are effectively secretive.


 * If you're really interested you might go try to find back issues of the Vine & Branches, PoP's inside newsletter, but who knows if those are to be found anywhere on the web or not. Also sign your posts, I'm not obliged to take them seriously if you don't, and neither is anyone else. -KriticKill (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Oh scratch that, easy find, www.peopleofpraise.org/thevine/ still looking to see how far back the issues go, however.

Criticism Section
Plan on further developing the criticism section by including Adrian's proper title and identification and material cited by the other works he has completed on this group. A good two or three more paragraphs can be added to the criticism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.9.201 (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

One might consider as a helpful model something liek the criticism section of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints. Note, despite regular criticisms to that effect, no mention of cult, no citation of former members, etc. There well could have been and there isn't. The criticism sections associated with any group can't be bolted on whole cloth (mixed metaphor ... sorry) by disgruntled former members. Not for the Democratic Party, not for the Catholic Church, not for the People of Praise. Taliesin's Son 75.161.181.10 (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on People of Praise. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140323181201/http://wnycatholic.org/wnycatholicnews/catholiclife/tabid/1182/vw/1/itemid/2067/people-of-praise-commit-lives-to-christian-community.aspx to http://wnycatholic.org/wnycatholicnews/catholiclife/tabid/1182/vw/1/itemid/2067/people-of-praise-commit-lives-to-christian-community.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725153256/http://www.eden.co.uk/directory/iccowe_international_charismatic_consultation_on_world_evangelisation__O4959.html to http://www.eden.co.uk/directory/iccowe_international_charismatic_consultation_on_world_evangelisation__O4959.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209170237/http://www.archdpdx.org/religiousmen/ to http://www.archdpdx.org/religiousmen/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20001001033203/http://www.christiansincommerce.org/index.html to http://www.christiansincommerce.org/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20001001033203/http://www.christiansincommerce.org/index.html to http://www.christiansincommerce.org/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

POV
this entire article reads like an internal debate between various schools of thought within Christianity. while that content may in fact be true, its certainly not NPOV, as it seems to be coming from a christian perspective. the criticism section is really about degrees of fidelity to various catholic or protestant concepts, from the perspective of a committed religious person. this article is useless as it stands, as a curious outsider will come away wondering what EXACTLY this church is. many of the terms used here have specific meanings (sometimes more than one) within christianity, like "covenant" as an agreement of some import. since the topic is now in the public eye, with a potential SCOTUS nominee connected to it, it behooves us to present an article that can really inform people. i will not have the time or energy to try it. please, anyone, take a stab at it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * First thing the article needs to make clear is that this is not a church. The majority of its members are Catholics, but there are also Protestant members and everyone is expected to attend their own church. Ltwin (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Areas of interest
Here are aspects on which the article could likely have more information (although it depends if reliable sources are available): Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 11:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Gender segregation (and what are the doctrinal foundations for it?)
 * Private schools (claimed non-denominational, but do they avoid some important academic topics like sex education or evolutionary biology? If so, do they favor a particular creationist doctrine?)
 * In relation to the "cult" allegations in previous discussions, has any scholarly source determined that it was a high control group?
 * Eschatology doctrines
 * If notable, failed prophecies (also from above discussions), but maybe also their claims on how prophecy works, who can prophecy, etc
 * Church/meetings attendence frequency/time
 * Special rituals if any


 * How often to meetings take place?
 * How many people are in the smallest unit?
 * Do the meet in homes, rented space, or in places they own?
 * How are regional units related to the smallest units? tahc chat 14:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good points, — Paleo Neonate  – 14:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have something against this group, PaleoNeonate? 2605:A601:5A5:F100:14F4:BC8:84F8:A2B7 (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would I? I have not known about it until a few days ago.  I however noticed the poor article, so have invited people of the Christianity WikiProject in case some are interested in improving it.  Please see above about sourcing requirements of Wikipedia.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've done what I can PaleoNeonate. It's not perfect, but I've tried to at least make the article comprehensible. Ltwin (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have just audited the changes and think that they significantly improved the article, it's an excellent start. Thank you very much, — Paleo  Neonate  – 12:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would add one very important area: does the group have any official position on the relationship between church teachings and civil law? if a potential SCOTUS candidate is a member, it would help to know if there is any sort of doctrinal injunction against placing civil law above divine edicts. most SCOTUS members, maybe all, recognize that their jobs require them to "judge" using civil law only. but most were either mainline protestants, catholics, or jews. have he ever had a member of a New Religious Movement in the Supreme Court?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In regards to teachings about the relationship between church teachings and civil law, each member would be informed by their church. Therefore, in the case of Amy Barrett, her views would be shaped by Catholic doctrine. Ltwin (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Mercurywoodrose, People of Praise is not a "New Religious Movement". It's an ecumenical, charismatic lay movement. Most of its members are Catholics. The Supreme Court nominee Amy Barrett is a member of this organization, but she is first and foremost a practicing Catholic. (Christine Rousselle, "Judge Amy Barrett criticized for charismatic affiliation- Who are the People of Praise?", Catholic News Agency, July 3, 2018.)Ltwin (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

"accused of being cult-like"
This needs a source. The following sentence quotes an anthropologist saying he would NOT use the word cult in its popular sense, and he does not go on to use it in a technical sense. Footnote 5 includes the word "cult" but is a dead link. Without a source the first sentence should be eliminated and the second one needs a working source. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It took me 30 seconds to fix it and verify all of the content it is used for, including the bit you claimed was unsourced. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH in Reception section
Blanking from this article, conducted by User:Anupam on September 20, 2020:


 * Kasper stated: "Protestant Christians do not wish to be a church in the same way as the Catholic church understands itself as a church." Reimers alleges that by embracing a certain form of ecumenism, People of Praise has adopted an idea of what it means to be "Church" which is inherently a Protestant one:

173.88.246.138 (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that information was removed because neither the Vatican article nor the EWTN article say anything about People of Praise. Quoting Kasper in a section on Reception makes it appear as if the cardinal himself was opposing the community. The single-purpose account who added the information violated WP:OR by using primary sources to write criticism against the subject, relating it to Reimer (see WP:SYNTH). As such, only information relating to the topic has been retained, and that too, by an ex-member who was dismissed from the organization, as mentioned in the source. I personally think that two large block quotes by Reimer are already undue. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk

Reimers
Do the two long block quotes by Adrian Reimers in the "Reception" section seem undue to anyone else? Is there a way we can summarize the info without needing to include two back-to-back block quotes? Marquardtika (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * There's that, and then the quotes themselves are more-than-somewhat opaque as to what they mean. ("Sword of the Spirit and the People of Praise misunderstand what the Church is, and this is most especially clear in the 'ecumenically sensitive' down-playing of certain specifically Catholic manifestations of faith. For example, both systems avoid public references to or veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary as something offensive to Protestants. But the ecclesiological significance of Mary is essential: She is the Mother and Model of the Church." etc etc). Also the source seems to be a PDF of a self-published manuscript. If there is the idea of putting critiques and assessments in here that have achieved some attention and currency (there are tons of Catholic journals that might have taken this up but I don't see that any have) than I'm not even sure whether this is worth summarizing. Novellasyes (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I didn't catch that it was a self-published manuscript. Which also appears to be a dead link. I'm going to remove it. Marquardtika (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Huge POV Issues
I understand the arguments above about the various sections that contained criticism of the group. Reviewing them, yes, they needed to be improved and correctly sourced. On the other hand, this article is now a poster child for how well-meaning removal of WP:POV creates worse POV problems. Overall, the article reads like a brochure for the group in question, with zero significant analytical balance on a variety of highly controversial positions. The gender roles section, for example, reads wonderfully... if we were still living in 1951. Overall, this article makes a great case for the AntiWiki types to "prove" that WP is a hotbed of bias.

Please, I beg you, someone with real subject-matter expertise cobble together at least a semblance of balance whilst better sourcing and phrasing is found for the Atwood comparisons and the Slate/Cult quote? With the media swirl around Barrett's Supreme Court aspirations, I am not the only one who will notice that a group that is openly compared to the dystopia of The Handmaid's Tale had (until recently) called the highest female role, Handmaiden, and will wonder (as did I) why on earth no balancing information appear in Wikipedia. Last1in (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I get what you're saying (I think). I think there's a systemic problem which is this (the People of Praise) is a really small group. Probably not even within the Catholic church is there a deep understanding of it. Do subject matter experts even exist? Are there scholars who have studied it? I have to believe we will find out over the next couple of weeks (if Barrett does get the nomination), because the national mainstream media just pretty much HAS to be out there looking for them. If Slate could have found better "people are calling it a cult" references than the two they used (two tweets, one of which was removed), they would have. Just because they didn't find those references yet, doesn't mean they aren't still looking and won't find them. Novellasyes (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I also thought the intro section reads like something you'd expect to see on a group's own website. "provides spiritual direction and opportunities for service"? It's also worth noting that Atwood immediately came to mind for me on seeing that they use the phrase "handmaid", independently of existing commentary, before I even knew other people had or might have made the same comparison. 2A00:23C5:1203:CE01:4039:C988:C00B:52AE (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thirded. I came here from a National Review article which says "Until recently, female advisers in People of Praise were called “handmaidens,” a title they retired after Atwood’s novel was popularized by a Hulu television series." (https://www.nationalreview.com/news/margaret-atwood-contradicts-herself-on-whether-judge-barretts-religious-group-people-of-praise-inspired-the-handmaids-tale/) That, combined with Last1In's excellent summation, really makes me feel there needs to be work done here. Why is there a thirteen paragraph, self-written description of this organization and no mention at all of it's cultural relevance -- either as a possible (as of yet unproven, but plausible) inspiration for Atwood's work or simply as an organization concerned enough of being compared to Atwood's work that they changed their internal terminology when Atwood's work became popularized? 2604:2000:7006:1100:3424:A715:146F:6800 (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Vox, not at all conservative, has written that POP was not an inspiration for Margaret Atwood's novel. The Vox article says it was another group with a similar name and use of the "handmaiden" title, "People of Hope." Ltwin (talk)

To add to article
To add to this article: where People of Praise stands on whether Christians gain salvation through faith (based on the teachings of Paul, as many Protestants believe) or good works (based on the teachings of Peter, as many Catholics believe). 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

POP website as a source
The POP’s own website is cited as a source several times, which I assume is due to a lack of secondary sources. Hopefully we can start replacing them with better ones, and also update the text to sound less like a brochure and more neutral. Pythagimedes (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement that the group inspired Margaret Atwood
added a paragraph saying that "People of Praise" was likely an inspiration for Margaret Atwood. This is sourced to this New York Times article from 1986 which does not mention the group "People of Praise". Newsweek ran this article on September 21, which also tied Atwood's inspiration to People of Praise but then ran a correction. I would say that the idea that "People of Praise" is likely the inspiration for Atwood isn't validated by any reputable sources at this time so shouldn't be in the article. Novellasyes (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, articles likes this in Newsweek (requiring a correction that invalidates the entire premise of the article) are why post-2013 articles in that publication are considered dubious at WP:RSP. Marquardtika (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Margaret Atwood spoke to Politico. She said "she was unsure whether People of Praise was among the real-world inspirations for her book, saying her notes from that time reside at the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library at the University of Toronto and are currently inaccessible due to the coronavirus. 'Unless I can go back into the clippings file, I hesitate to say anything specific.'" Marquardtika (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this wonderful find User:Marquardtika! Kind regards, AnupamTalk 18:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Would media commentary on whether or not People of Praise inspired The Handmaid's Tale be wiki notable? Especially since it reached the point where someone actually asked Atwood about it -- she didn't actually say no. RexSueciae (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying that the organization inspired the book would be clearly inaccurate. Saying that the organization has been compared to the book would be factually correct, per the Politico article above. (And they got the author to weigh in!) RexSueciae (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it would be fair and true to say that much conversation took place on the question of whether PoP inspired Atwood. On September 26, NYT opinion writer Elizabeth Bruenig weighed in on this matter, writing, "A good amount of febrile nonsense has indeed been floated regarding Judge Barrett’s spiritual life, such as the notion that People of Praise inspired Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel 'The Handmaid’s Tale,' a charge that is reminiscent of 19th-century myths of nuns kidnapping good Protestant girls to force the faith upon them." This establishes that much discussion has occurred on this question. I.e., we have here someone saying that that is what happened, so (especially if others point out that this happened -- i.e, much verbiage took place on this question) -- then it becomes a notable fact that that's what happened. It's a separate question whether the conversation that did take place amounted to febrile nonsense. Wikipedia describes Bruenig as being "of the Catholic left". FWIW, the most highly-regarded reliable publications I've seen today say that Democratic leadership has decided to stay far, far away from the religious critique of ACB and lean into the ACA critique. That doesn't mean we won't continue to see speculation on PoP but at this point, I would really doubt that, for example, she's going to get asked about that by (a) reporters or (b) members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Novellasyes (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2020
This entry was written entirely by the People of Praise. It is propaganda; it is in no way objective. Please get someone to edit this—or rewrite it entirely! I think the public needs and deserves an objective evaluation and description of this organization. Thanks, Leo Lvnalencz (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You can request specific changes here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y", citing reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * However, I agree, this article's tone is a bit brochure-like. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, this page is pretty much an advertisement. I restored the only phrase with a critical remark about this organization. My very best wishes (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

On being "spiritually mature"
Hi can you shed some light on adding quote marks around "spiritually mature"? My first reaction is that it looked like scare quotes but that may not be at all what was intended. I looked at Manual of Style/Words to watch as well. Just wondering where you're going with this or what was intended. I assume although I haven't looked at in fact the POP group uses the phrase "spiritually mature" to describe what they're looking for in a sponsor. In that way, this would be a direct quote of how they describe the situation. Novellasyes (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I added quote marks around "spiritually mature" in the lead section because the term appears to be a direct quote. See the following text present in the article's Leadership and spiritual direction section:

"The most controversial aspect of the People of Praise is the practice of headship or pastoral leadership, which, according to anthropologist Thomas Csordas, is where 'individual members are supervised in their daily lives by a person regarded as more 'spiritually mature."


 * — Matthew  - (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You might see this form of pastoral leadership as controversial but it's actually quite common, especially in Evangelical Christianity. It's not found much in Catholicism, that's true, but it's not unusual within American Christianity. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really have much knowledge regarding whether that form of leadership is considered controversial or common—I was just replying to a question about why "spiritually mature" is written in quotes in the article. If the practice is not considered controversial, then I figure someone should look into what the accompanying source has to say, or find sources that say otherwise. — Matthew  - (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: Criticism section
First off, I think that whether or not information is coming from former members or current members or whoever else is absolutely irrelevent. Secondly, I appreciate your willingness to allow others' views in this page, as other anonymous ip's have been very bad at. However, I don't understand what you mean when you say "Also making it clear who is saying what." This is supposedly an encyclopedic work, supposedly written with objectivity (which obviously hasn't been the case). I don't really care who is saying what, but what needs to happen is it needs to be an article that isn't dominated by those completely biased about it (one way or the other). That said, I am all about working together to find a happy medium. Which means: not slashing out items/sources we don't like (i.e. reimers) just because we don't agree. Which also means: thinking a little bit more critically and trying to use solid sources before spilling the word "cult" all over the page. D1xrfgf3 9 December 2006

Recent AP article discusses controversial aspects of this group including strict hierarchy and gender division "the board of governors consists of all men" and their "involvlement in every consequential decision.. including what car to buy" went through the all male hierarchy https://apnews.com/article/new-orleans-donald-trump-amy-coney-barrett-us-supreme-court-courts-307b039f041e22448c98a3397353dfd4  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:500:8501:20E0:3435:BC67:F74D:B41F (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Misc. sources

 * 1) Associated Press - ".. a Christian fellowship, focused on building community. One member described it as a 'family of families,' who commit themselves to each other in mutual support to live together 'through thick and thin.' . ."(?) - Or - ". .hierarchical, authoritarian and controlling, where men dominate their wives, leaders dictate members' life choices and those who leave are shunned. . ."(?)
 * 2) Politico - ". . [per Adrian Reimers] There were two tiers of memberships: 'underway,' in which members take courses and aren’t yet considered fully admitted to People of Praise, and 'covenanted' members, making an agreement to each other to abide by the group’s dictates. . ." ". . journalists have worked to learn more about the group, in some cases describing a 'sexist' and 'authoritarian' environment. Barrett has never confirmed her involvement in People of Praise, nor has People of Praise confirmed her membership—though she hasn’t denied reports of her membership from numerous outlets over the past two years. . ." --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) christianytoday - ". . People of Praise (and similar movements) continued more in their prior form— an intentional Christian community. Such communities were much more common in the 1970s, but a few continued in similar forms (including the People of Praise). . ." --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) peopleofpraise - ". . The People of Praise also has roots in the Cursillo, an evangelistic movement founded in Spain by Catholic laymen in the 1940s, which spread to Mexico and the United States, influencing some of our founding members. . ." --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) https://www.scribd.com/document/20435349/Schism-in-Word-of-God-Fidelity-Magazine-and-the-Clark-Martin-Split
 * 6) a.j.reimers - "'. . To overestimate the importance of the People of Praise and the Sword of the Spirit for the covenant community movement is well-nigh impossible. The leaders and founders of these groups -- Stephen B. Clark and Ralph Martin (The Word of God / Sword of the Spirit), Paul C. DeCelles and Kevin Ranaghan (People of Praise) -- formulated the vision,developed the teachings, promulgated the principles and established the actual models that have inspired almost every other covenant community in North America. . .' '. . In the summer and fall of 1971, two covenant communities formed from the same charismatic prayer meeting. Jim Byrne, a senior at Notre Dame, gathered a community of students and recent graduates to form “True House”, while DeCelles and Ranaghan gathered a community consisting mainly of townspeople from South Bend. Within three years True House had collapsed from leadership problems. The People of Praise, however, grew in size and influence. While the group in Ann Arbor published, the People of Praise distributed books and organized huge congresses that attracted up to 26,000 participants to the Notre Dame campus. To see Knute Rockne's stadium half-full of charismatics chanting “He's number one!” (referring of course to Jesus) was enough to convince almost anyone that something remarkable was indeed afoot. These events propelled Kevin Ranaghan into a position as spokesman and most visible theologian of the new movement. . .' '. . Since 1981 the People of Praise has separated itself from the Word of God/Sword of the Spirit and has disavowed its connection with Stephen B. Clark and his writings. In particular, People of Praise leaders have argued recently that criticisms of Clark's thought and approaches do not apply to their group because of this repudiation. Nevertheless, Building Christian Communities is foundational to that group as well as to the Sword of the Spirit for two reasons:First, the main ideas for the book were formed in the context of Clark's work and discussions in the early and mid-1960's with a group whose members included Paul C.DeCelles and Kevin M. Ranaghan, the eventual founders of People of Praise. This work, Building Christian Communities, expresses much of this group's common vision. . .'"--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

How spiritual direction works
I removed the recently-added sentence that says "Women are directed exclusively by their husbands, whilst men are directed by other members of the organization as deemed appropriate." No citation was offered and this seems to conflict with the idea of the role of older women (who used to be called handmaids but are now called something else) serving as spiritual mentors to other women. But regardless of that, the clause "women are directed exclusively by their husbands" is a strong categorical statement that really ought to have a citation for it to stand in the article. Novellasyes (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * There could be a better way to say this, but the National Catholic review states that women are headed by their husbands. https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/prospective-supreme-court-nominee-puts-spotlight-people-praise However, there is a difference between a handmaid and a head that could be made more clear in the context of this sentence, but I didn’t feel it was necessary because the article discusses the difference between those two positions elsewhere. Taken in the full context of the article I believe this was adaquate, but perhaps could be rephrased to better stand alone. DonGeiss (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of issues to consider. (1) At how many points in the article does this need to be discussed and reviewed? Your comment above suggests that you think the answer is "more than one place". Off the top of my head I don't agree. (2) If as you say "the National Catholic review" states that women are headed by their husbands, this doesn't establish what you originally wrote in your sentence. Your sentence (the one I removed) said, "Women are directed exclusively by their husbands...." I hope you can see the distinction between those two ideas. Novellasyes (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Concern at the Vatican?
I removed the recently-added sentence that says, " The presence of charasmatic catholocism in on-campus communities caused concern at the Vatican, with Pope Paul VI expressing concerns that the evangelical mission of these groups did not fully embrace Catholic teachings." because in the linked citation (https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2020/05/30/pope-francis-calls-upon-catholic-charismatic-community-work-justice) I couldn't find a reference to the idea that the Vatican was concerned. It might be there and I missed it. Novellasyes (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * the article uses the word “suspicious” which I think equates to concern, with concern being a slightly less extreme descriptor, in the interest of fairness. I’ll make it more closely mirror the cited article. DonGeiss (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing this either. The only place I see the word "suspicous" in the article is "The dialogues he [Cardinal Leo Suenens] hosted in Malines, Belgium, between charismatic leaders and theologians and church leaders that would over time be key to overcoming bishops' suspicions of the Renewal while helping to integrate it into the wider church." Marquardtika (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * that is correct. Suspicions (concerns?) within the Church regarding these (and other) parachurch organizations, their influence on campuses and on young people, and their divergence from Vatican leadership structure and teaching were cause for a series of meetings and some investigation to determine how these groups fit with mainline Catholocism (if at all). You’ll note that the full context is that the Vatican viewed(views) some as more aligned than others, with people of praise in the “more” side. I think the dichotomy with mainline mission is important to show here, as is the spectrum of differences amongst charasmatic catholic groups. This was the beginning of recognition of this movement by the Vatican, which is a topic discussed elsewhere, so there needs to be some background and timeline on how that acceptance evolved. DonGeiss (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of the phrase "...overcoming bishops' suspicions of the Renewal." As best as I can understand here, you are thinking that "bishops" = "the Vatican". Why do you think that? Novellasyes (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Financials
Because People of Praise is not a church, its financials are publicly available. See: https://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/237/237036494/237036494_201706_990.pdf

I think items such as revenue, holdings, and salaries are relevant, but will take significant time to incorporate, so I would like consensus as to whether they will be accepted before I invest the time in incorporating them. DonGeiss (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the judgment about whether those things are relevant/notable enough to add to the article would typically be left by Wikipedia up to outside reliable sources. If a solid handful of news enterprises (such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, etc., etc. -- of that stature) think this material is relevant and notable enough to write articles reviewing the material and sharing details from it in their pages, then the material they are going over about revenue, holdings and salaries (etc.) would be incorporatable here, and otherwise not. That at least is what I think is the general approach. Novellasyes (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The 990 also contains information like the names of all board members, as well as affiliated organizations either by ownership or by significant financial support. While these have been reported in part (which I assume means that news has found these relevant) I have not seen a complete reporting in one article. Nor have I seen any reference to the 990 as a source; although as a sworn tax filing it’s about as primary as you can get. DonGeiss (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I added some basic info based on what’s available in the infobox template. Nothing too complicated. I also did some cleanup and tried balance and unbias a few things. It still needs work and I’ll come back to it if there are any concerns. DonGeiss (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This discussion continues under the Charitable Activities section, because another user created that section regarding similar issues and discussion, and the 990 information/data was raised there by a third user. Please resume there. DonGeiss (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)