Talk:Sovereign Grace Ministries/Archive 1

SGM Uncensored

The website SGM uncensored is the primary source of blogopshere criticism regarding SGM. As such, it deserves to be refered to, though not endorsed. Mentioning it does not legimise it: but acknowledges it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Look2008 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Reporting valid criticism is fine, but cite reliable sources. Citing one anonymous gossip weblog is not sufficient, it's more tantamount to slander, certainly rumor and personal opinion. Please read the Wiki policy on verifiability, reliable sources, and questionable sources. Here's a snippet:

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources."

Again, I encourage any and all critical information to be supplied, as long as it is factual based upon reliable sources. Thanks Timothy6 20 (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, from what I can plainly see on this article, it is all either in need of verification, or deletion, there are no citations at all. Most of this article appears to be original research. And just for the record, I'm not going to take sides on this. I'm merely stating what I see. Steve Crossin (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, I'm Adventist. Also, please sign your posts. SineBot really does have enough work on its hands already, don't you think? :) Steve Crossin (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely what I mean - it's like a press release from SGM itself; not a research article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Look2008 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm Episcopalian. User:Look2008 (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Btw, it's exactly the same with CJ Mahaney article, which is scheduled for deletion. User:Look2008 (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I'm tagging this article, with the tags I think necessary. Discuss disputes about them here. Steve Crossin (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe we now have a fully-referenced article. (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the tags can now be removed. The article is fully sources with primary and secondary sources freely viewable on the internet or purchasable through Amazon.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Look2008 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the entire criticism section and the two blog external links. For the record, I am not and have never been associated with SGM. Wikipedia policy is clear on the use of blogs in this way, that it is not acceptable. So I appreciate the discussion here, but until a reliable source includes those criticisms then they will have to be removed. As an experienced editor, I just can't allow it to stay, it's a clear violation of WP:RS . Gatorgalen (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that you might think you are "neutral" since you have never been associated with SGM but aren't you involved in another church (Great Commission) that has also seen its share of questions online quite similar to the SG Uncensored post? With this being case, are you sure you can be so neutral? Perhaps you are sticking up for another group similar to the one you have defended? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.107.119.50 (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi "Look2008", in regards your edit that suggests that SGM has expunged Larry Tomzack from their history, are you aware of any evidence of this? I don't think that they have any sort of official written church history. Therefore, I'm not sure that it's completely fair to suggest that they are trying to "cover up" his role. What are your thoughts? Timothy6 20 (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

---

If SG Uncensored is a blog (and it clearly is, and a potentially libelous one at that), why does the link continue to be added?

Together for the Gospel

Together for the gospel is not "put on" by SGM. CJ only attends as one of four hosts.

This is not entirely accurate. Together for the Gospel event registration has been administered by Sovereign Grace Ministries since the conferences' conception. Meanwhile, t4g.org and togetherforthegospel.org are registered to Capitol Hill Baptist Church, where Mark Dever (another of the four hosts) pastors. If "T4G is put on by SGM" is an overstatement, "CJ only attends" is a greater understatement. -- travisseitler (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree with the above statement. I should have been more clear. SMG doesn't put on T4G but CJ also does much more than attend. He is one of the four main speakers and hosts of the conference. And SMG does send out volunteers for the conference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.136.135 (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy on Using Blogs as Sources

some information for you to read can be found here:  Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 02:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

“ Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. ”

So far on this page I don't see a very thorough discussion of the policy issues in linking to the Sovereign Grace Uncensored blog. The WP:BLP policy cautions us about linking to defamatory material, and I don't know yet if the blog is troublesome in that area. Since I'm new to this page, and not a member of any related church, my main issue is learning if the blog link is being analyzed properly. Policy seems to lean against it, as noted by the poster above. If there are criticisms by former church members that have been published in reliable sources we can certainly use those. If there are published sources that have commented on the blog in question, we can refer to those publications. Is it publicly revealed who has created the blog? Does it have anything we could point to as an editorial track record? Does it have a reputation for reliability as regards facts? It is a concern that the current text of the article makes no reference to the blog. If the blog is not described in any reliable sources, it will probably have to remain unmentioned here. Some of the people who comment in the blog might be quoted elsewhere, and we might be able to use those quotes. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how one can credibly say that the SG Uncensored blog is not "defamatory" -- it most certainly is, and from what I've examined is likely libelous. It is not a credible source, but rather a place for a few disgruntled former members, many of whom were under discipline in their churches, to air their grievances in public. Their grievances have never been substantiated, and are not published in any legitimate media. Solideogloria80 10:27, 10 March 2008

Solideogloria80, could you please substantiate this claim? From medialaw.org: The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also be a false statement of fact. That which is name-calling, hyperbole, or, however characterized, cannot be proven true or false, cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim (emphasis added). -- travisseitler (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Travisseitler, upon reading the blog do you think it's mere hearsay and slander or personal stories told under assumed names? Look2008 (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Look2008, Travisseitler is one of the contributors to the blog, so I'm pretty sure he's fine with it. Timothy6 20 (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• I believe the accounts shared on that site are personal stories told under assumed names. (Now that you mention it, I suppose I am one of the only people on that blog who's writing under his real name.) Whether SGM is considered a cultic group or not, I (and others who have left) have been made to feel a certain pressure to remain silent regarding matters which may shed a poor light on the organization. Friendships--and even familial relationships--can be threatened if a former member publicly makes a negative statement regarding leadership within the group (either pastors or members of the Leadership Team). Because of this, many feel they would risk alienation if they identified themselves. (I suppose I seem reckless by comparison; on my own blog I had already shared a summary of my own break from a Sovereign Grace church. You can read the comments on that post to get a glimpse of the typical responses from other members, and I've received e-mails from yet more members of that church who agree with me to varying extents, but choose to remain silent because they fear the reprisal and/or loss of friendship which may result.) Additionally, I have witnessed Sovereign Grace pastors attempt to gloss over such negative accounts as have been given on this blog--or dismiss them entirely--rather than deal with them openly and honestly. All things considered, "the pieces seem to fit" is my general impression of the stories recounted on the blog. Of course, I certainly see how a greater degree of transparency (re: commenters' identities) would lend greater credence to the blog. -- travisseitler (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Informal Mediation Regarding Content Dispute

I was the first one brought to this article, and I offered informal mediation on the article. I thought the issue was resolved. However, it is quite clear there is still a dispute on this article, and needs to be resolved, either formally or informally. I think it best if each involved party state their point of view on the article, their requests for what should/should not be included in the article, their reasons behind it, and provide reliable sources to verify any claims that you wish to include in the article. Note- I am not an administrator, I am just offering some informal mediation. Please state your intentions below, and please, sign your comments, by using 4 tildes (~~~~) after your comments. Thank you. Steve Crossin (talk)

I have asked each editor to make a statement below. This is an attempt to solve the content dispute on this article, it is not formal mediation, I cannot enforce anything, that said, it's an attempt to try acheiving a consensus on the article, so I ask that everyone be civil, and sign your comments. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary Statements

Statement by Look2008

As it stands, the article is fully coroborated by reliable first and second party sources. Every statement in the article is backed-up with a citation. SGM/PDI's history is done full justice. The group as a whole has been on a journey, which this article records in detail. The one part I wish to expand and develop is that of the last few years; sketch in a little more detail on current distictives and emphases, people, conferences and church plants.

As regards SGM Uncensored, the first objection to it came from an SGM member. I am open to whether the link remains or not.Look2008 (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tjbergsma

I did not know of Sovereign Grace Ministries prior to coming across this article. As an editor I saw some uncited statements and subjective inferences. It is clear that there are some who are upset with Sovereign Grace Ministries, however, a blog where disgruntled former members can blow off some steam is unacceptable in my opinion, and from what I have posted above, also unacceptable to Wikipedia.

Since the repeated posting of that blog I have been watching this article and a number of anonymous IP's (several from the same address in VA!) have been reposting unsourced subjective comments, clearly aimed to attack this organization. That has caught my attention and I have been trying to weed that stuff out (along with several other Users), because that is not how encyclopedias work. That's how blogs work. Hurt feelings are not a ground to write an article in Wikipedia and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged.

 Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 12:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement By Mediator

• As I presently see the article, it is mainly disputed whether the article should have a link to the "SGM Uncensored" website, should be included. As I see it, it should probably not be there, see here. It states that, in general, "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." If proof that the website is by a recognised authority can be established, then it should be discussed whether it should be included in the article. It's also been disputed that the article is not neutral. Please state your reasons as to why/why not, with references/evidence to back up your claims. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by NovareProject

One reason which the "SGM Uncensored" users have cited in including a link to their blog is that there is a distinct lack of published media offering opposing views toward Sovereign Grace Ministries' beliefs and policies. Additionally, Sovereign Grace Ministries' website, while openly proclaiming their doctrinal standings and Biblical interpretations, does not discuss any of the actual policies and disciplinary practices it incorporates toward its members. These practices are carefully delinieated within individual church charters but not openly discussed by the ministry itself. To the best of my knowledge, "SGM Uncensored" is the only website which adresses some of these bifurcations between Sovereign Grace Ministries' stated beliefs and actual policies.

Another dispute being made toward the article has been regarding a lack of historical accuracy. While the article now reflects a more factual description of the ministries' foundations, many editors have come in to remove aspects which are not in keeping with Sovereign Grace Ministries' currently stated beliefs. From my research, the group takes a somewhat revisionist history stance as regards their own growth and doctrinal change, including omittance of persons who once played a strong role in the ministries' development but have now become estranged from it (i.e. Larry Tomczak). In order to be a balanced, informative article, I feel that inclusion should be made of Sovereign Grace Ministries' development and doctrinal shifts instead of solely describing its currently held statement of faith, which can be viewed on the Sovereign Grace website.

While I agree that it may not be in accordance with Wikipedia policies to link to the "SGM Uncensored" blog, I feel that a "Controversy" section would be warranted for this article to allow for alternate perspectives to be communicated without comprimising the actual article's objectivity. Novareproject (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Travisseitler

While I personally believe the majority of statements made on the "SGM Uncensored" blog are likely true (they reflect common examples of abuse reported amongst former members of churches affiliated with the "Shepherding Movement," to which SGM/People of Destiny International has historic ties), I recognize that these markedly differ from to-date publicized accounts of relationships within a Sovereign Grace Ministries church. My inclination is to give the blog more leeway, due to the psychological abuses allegedly suffered and the fear of reprisal following self-identification. However, I also understand that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and at this point the blog in question does not meet this requirement.

I agree with Novareproject that a Controversy section may be warranted in this case. -- travisseitler (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement By Timothy6_20

My vote is for a fully balanced article, not an advertisement for Sovereign Grace Ministries, but also not a place for angry former members to lambast the group either. All legitimate criticism should be documented here, provided the proper sourcing. I do agree that the blog in question fails to meet any of the guidelines for a proper source, as it is a handful of anonymous comments (looks like about ten different people do 95% of the commenting) that post multiple times a day (I looked and several posters seem to be posting once every few minutes- no wonder they have so many hits!). Novareproject suggests that SGM "does not discuss any of the actual policies and disciplinary practices it incorporates toward its members", but these policies are, in fact, listed online, available in various forms, see [[1]] for instance. The edits that I have been concerned with are mainly coming from anonymous users, and it seems many of them reside in Virginia (many with the same address even!). They seem to be the work of someone bent on twisting facts in order to throw mud at their former church. Thanks all. Timothy6 20 (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by GeoCacher301

I agree with Travis Seitler where he states that he believes the majority of statements made on the "SGM Uncensored" blog are likely true. The moderator of the blog has pointed out that she personally has “no axe to grind” with the group but put this almost as fluke. She was surprised and still is at the number of hits and comments that have occurred and are still occurring. The blog is a discussion and not a blog set up to “bash” Sovereign Grace.

If the Wiki policy does not allow listing blogs like this then it might be hard to justify having it listed. As others have pointed out, this blog appears to be the only entry on the web providing any criticism of this group. A lack of any critical information about a group of this size that has existed for as long it has makes me quite suspicious. Thus due to this situation it might merit making an exception to Wiki’s policy.

In less than four months of existence, the SG Uncensored Blog has generated over 100,000 hits with the pace staying the same or increasing. If having the link for this blog is not allowed due to Wikipedia’s policy than I feel there should be an entry on the Sovereign Grace Ministries Entry reporting on the Sovereign Grace Uncensored Blog. 100K of hits is quite a number for the little time it has been in existence.

There also doesn’t appear to be any attempt by the leadership of Sovereign Grace to research the merits of any of these allegations, especially the more serious ones that have been raised on this blog. That situation alone I feel warrants some type of entry about this blog on Wiki’s Sovereign Grace Entry.

When I first noticed this entry as others have indicated it appeared to be a press release from Sovereign Grace Ministries. A lot of their history (especially the darker and questionable items) was not mentioned. Look2008 seems to have done a good job of providing the missing parts of this group’s history and has included references. It appears that some members of Sovereign Grace were then trying to “sanitize” this entry. I would hate to see the entry go back to its former “press release” status. Geocacher301 (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by push4cush

I respect Wikipedia and its desire to maintain a neutral, balanced representation of facts. One of the admitted problems with citing published sources that contain criticisms about Sovereign Grace Ministries is that its leaders and members are forced to sign stringent documents that place disclosure restrictions that are tantamount to "gag orders."

Their flagship church, Covenant Life Church, has new members sign an unheard of 84-page, legally binding membership contract that strips members of rights well after they leave the church. This includes leadership's right to have church discipline processes continued or even initiated against them after they sever their membership ties with the organization. Members also agree that they will not even listen to gossip or slander about their leaders, and their definition of gossip is any information relayed for which they are not part of the problem or solution. According to the contract, just reading at a site like SGUncensored is in violation of the contract they signed. This is why so many bloggers are very afraid of having their identities revealed. The fear of reprisal is a very real one, and their discipline processes are grueling.

If regular church members have to sign a document this extensive just to join a church in Sovereign Grace Ministries, imagine the legal snafu someone who would be a credible enough source to criticize Sovereign Grace in writing would face. It could be perilous. It has even been reported that leaders who leave are made to sign legal documents that preclude discussion of details pertaining to some of their stringent discipline processes that closely align with shepherding practices or other reasons for departure. That's why it's easy for these leaders to just disappear quietly after leaving Sovereign Grace - and even be edited out of the SGM annuls. Larry Tomczak would be a good one to ask about this policy for verification.

So it hardly seems appropriate for a ministry that has adopted a cunning legal strategy to be granted the same free passage on Wikipedia. SGUncensored is the only website out there offering an alternative view to the previous PR-oriented Sovereign Grace Ministries page. And because there is so little information on the Wikipedia about some of SGM's shepherding practices, wouldn't it be reasonable to afford visitors the opportunity to research for themselves the efficacy of claims made on the SGU blog -- especially if its link is under the External Links section? I understand completely if it can't be listed in the article itself, but it only seems fair to give visitors the option to explore more.

Having the SGUncensored link on the Wikipedia page has been the first time former members have been given a voice to offer cautionary advice to those who visit. And the blog moderator, as well as other regular posters, have been vigilant to protect the reputation of the ministry from slander or malicious flaming. Posts from those who have an unfavorable opinion of Sovereign Grace Ministries have, at times, been edited, deleted, or redirected. But those who are pro-SGM have always been given free reign to share their thoughts, opinions, and defenses without fear of censorship. If this blog were merely dedicated to flaming Sovereign Grace Ministries, it would be reasonable to expect the converse to be true.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Push4cush (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)push4cush

Statement by Solideogloria80

It appears that Sovereign Grace has no interest in responding to undocumented internet anonymous charges. In one sense that is unfortunate, but more than anything I think it reflects their trust in God to be their defender. The reality is that this is a blog that has very few regular posters who are listing their gripes. Most of them admit that they were under church discipline, thus their bitterness is somewhat understandable (though not justifiable). A few only attended for a few months. Their gripes are based on a few run ins with the pastor of their local church. But this isn't a webpage about individual churches, but rather about the movement as a whole. They make sweeping statements, generalizing the movement and its leaders as a whole, much of it based on hearsay and gossip. The article itself is not balanced, but the link to a website that very well may be guilty of libel is simply over the top.

Either Wikipedia has a meaningful policy or it doesn't, as it relates to blogs. That part of the discussion here should be open and shut.

• And for the record, I know for a fact that some of what "Push 4Cush" said above is untrue and cannot be proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solideogloria80 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Solideogloria80 (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2008

Statement by mlmarket

I am in favor of a neutral page and would not be in favor of including the link to SGUncensored. I have been reading this blog for many months and have also read all of the archives and am well acquainted with the posters. This blog should not be included because it is not directly representing Sovereign Grace Ministries as a whole. SGM is made up of over 70 churches worldwide representing thousands of people (several of the churches are alone in the 1,000's). This does not even take into account the # of people that have happily left SGM for other churches not included in these totals.

As a large majority of the posters are anonymous, there is very little indication "which" church they came from or had problems with. Whether or not they did have problems aside, how can this blog be relevant to "Sovereign Grace Ministries" website when they are posting about individual churches anonymously? One regular argument is that C.J. Mahaney runs things from the top down but each church, while associating with SGM in relationship, is legally separate and in many cases is incorporated with its own board specifically exclusive of SGM-employees, even the leadership team. (my own church pastor is a source for this information.)

Additionally many statements in the blog are repeatedly made that generalize the movement as a whole even when it is clear it is different from church to church, as several posters have said. One main example is a thread regarding membership covenants from one church. After reading the thread one could very well be left with the impression that ALL SGM churches do this. This is not true, the source being my membership at my SGM church. Tithing is an example that one posted has mentioned having trouble with and is documented on his blog. I believe him and it seems like it was a bad situation. He has mentioned his church but then subsequent posters seem to then characterize the SGM movement due to one church. Again, untrue as our pastors have repeatedly said from the pulpit that they do not even know who contributes what because they don't want it done out of compulsion. The pattern seems to be one person posting their experience of their church (usually unnamed) and then many future posts assuming it's true across the board or jumping to that conclusion.

This blog, as someone else has mentioned, has 20-40 posters that regularly post. I just reviewed their most recent closed thread - 523 comments, 33 total posters (most of whom are the ones appearing in each thread). One poster alone accounts for 123 comments and she has stated on numerous occasions that she has never even been to an SGM church, only friendships with people from SGM churches. (SGUncensored). While it may seem that they have a lot of hits, every time someone "checks the page" again it is a hit. One poster alone made reference to the fact that she checks the site every 4-5X a minute (SGUncensored). In light of this, it doesn't even seem to give merit to a "Controversy" section. Perhaps, if the blog was about an individual church and that church had a wiki page then the argument for it would make a small amount of sense. But even then you're talking about an anonymous blog. It seems that many of the reasons given for why this blog should be listed ie we're the only ones talking about the negatives of sgm - shepherding, abusing authority, etc. seem to be these generalizations based on these few people in light of the 1,000's of content people not sharing, posting or even reading. This is not a statement of judgment as to what these few people experienced only an indication that it does not seem to represent a large swath of opinion.

Additionally this blog is not neutral and is not a comfortable place for both opinions to be heard. Although the moderator states that we should "speak the truth in love" on the sidebar, there have been many posts that have been allowed that have not been spoken in love. Although geocacher above states that their desire is not to "bash", many posts would indicate otherwise. In a recent thread a regular poster point blank asked "when can we get back to bashing SGM? :-)" (#56, recent fear thread). Also recently when a sgm "defender" under the name sola fide came on board and upset the regular posters he/she was, in the same thread, referred to as (not exact phrasing) Solafullayoself and Sofulacrap. Additionally they regularly mock CJ calling him Seege and make fun of the way he speaks. Most recently they have taken songs sung by many churches around the world, not just SGM, and changed the words to mock SGM.

I share this to make the point that even in the blogosphere the comments sections of many blogs are handled in a fashion where many can disagree politely (or not so politely!) But they can disagree. This blog has an atmosphere of collusion where I suggest anyone wishing to post to the contrary of the majority are felt unwelcome unless they bend over backwards to apologize to all of the regular posters and unless they avoid any controversy. The moderator recently said: "my patience for SGM attack dogs has run thin." (SGU, membership covenant #27). Therefore I don't think, even as blogs go, it's a neutral blog worthy of consideration of it's own link or section.

Thanks for considering my thoughts. Although, from my writing you can tell that I'm arguably not neutral, I do believe my arguments for exclusion of the blog are. Thanks for your consideration. mlmarket71.62.82.205 (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Mlmarket

Additional Statement by GeoCacher301

I would like to offer some comments back regarding Solideogloria80 and Timothy6_20. I have reviewed a few days worth of comments on the SG Uncensored Blog and found around 45 different names posting. It may be true that there are some that post more than others but there are a number of posters more than just a handful that these two editors would lead people to believe. The moderator of the blog of the blog has also reported receiving numerous emails from other parties with similar stories that were fearful of posting their story on the blog. Thus in summary, I don't believe this is a relatively small number of people either posting, reading this blog nor is it a small number of people that have had bad experiences with Sovereign Grace.

I also don't feel that Solideogloria80's statement that "Most of them admit that they were under church discipline" is not true. Even it was true, the reasons many have given for this "church discipline" has not been sin issues but was due to their questioning and not towing the Sovereign Grace party line. Some on the blog have even shared that after they decided to leave Sovereign Grace the leaders of the local church they were in told lies about them including why they were leaving. Thus I don't think one can easily discredit what has been talked about on the Sovereign Grace Blog as this person would lead you to believe. Geocacher301 (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Timothy6_20

• Hi Geocacher301. Just to clarify, I never suggested how many commenters there are. I did call attention, however, to the fact that of the thousands of comments, the overwhelming majority of them (about 90-95%) are from ten different commenters. As for the rest of your comment, you seem to contradict yourself in saying that the commenters weren't under church discipline, but, well, okay, they might have been, but for other reasons. Which one is it, were they under church discipline or weren't they? Timothy6 20 (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to keep in mind that issues that SGM leadership exercises church discipline for far surpasses that which is biblical, such as disagreeing with them on doctrinal issues, being thin, sharing with someone else a direction your church is taking that you don't agree with, etc. So to discredit someone because he or she has experienced church discipline over an issue which should have never fallen under its dictates to begin with is double jeopardy, imo.

Push4cush (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Push4cush

I am not suggesting disqualification. I am a member of an SGM church, you are a former member- I don't think that disqualifies us from editing this article. I do, however, think that it is important to know someone and where they come from in order to know the full story.

For instance, if a young boy is accused of stealing, and he cries "that's not a fair accusation", it is important to know whether or not the young boy has a history of theft. It does not disqualify his defense, but it is still important to take into consideration. Furthermore, it is just as important to know whether or not the accuser has been reliable in his accusations in the past, or if he has been labeled a false accuser.

Thanks. Timothy6 20 (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my point. I'm not talking about whether someone is disqualified from editing this article. I was referring back to Solideogloria's statement: "Most of them admit that they were under church discipline, thus their bitterness is somewhat understandable (though not justifiable)," which Geocacher301 also commented on. Not only is it an exaggeration to say most of the people participating on the blog have experienced church discipline, it's unfair to disqualify (or discredit, if you prefer) their perspective even if they DID experience church discipline, given the gnats that SGM sometimes strains at in these stringent processes.

Push4cush (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Tjbergsma

This still does not make blogs acceptable to Wikipedia. It doesn't matter at all how many people go there (and 45 people is next to nothing anyway). Blog are not acceptable, especially one sided blogs, and more especially blogs written by parties involved. Plus this could fall under the category of "original research." It breaks all kinds of guidelines set by wikipedia and we should not allow this precedent.

However, I think that a section on the "belief shift" of SGM is acceptable, even quite proper. But this too must not degrade into a bashing section.  Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 21:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Response from Push4cush

Berg, you employ faulty logic in a couple of your points. First, according to Steve in his explanation above, blogs can be linked to from Wikipedia. So even your statement, "It breaks all kinds of guidelines set by wikipedia and we should not allow this precedent" is not founded in an understanding of Wikipedia policy and smacks of filibustering. The debate is centered around whether a blog can meet the authority litmus test, and it's a tough call. (Or this forum wouldn't have been set up in the first place.)

But then you take your argument one step further by adding, "especially not one sided blogs." However, the SGU is not one sided. It provides a forum for both SGM enthusiasts and dissenters to engage in reasonable debate, presenting both sides of any given argument. Flaming is quickly quelled by the moderator and challenged by other participants there. And anyone who visits can join in the discussion. On the other hand, CJ Mahaney's blog, which is easily accessible from the SGM home page, IS one sided and affords no opportunity for another side to be presented. He can even instruct Christians in something as mundane as how to watch the SuperBowl -- with his example of "strategic clickery" being set up as something to be emulated -- and there is no opportunity to challenge its pretentiousness or absurdity.

Push4cush (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Timothy6_20

• Push4cush, you again bring up CJ's blog, which has nothing to do with the current conversation. And as for the argument that the blog that we are talking about "provides a forum for both SGM enthusiasts and dissenters to engage in reasonable debate, presenting both sides of any given argument"; seriously, anyone who takes one cursory look at the website and how they respond to anyone who disagrees with them would recognize this statement as false.

Again, I am all for legitimate criticism being listed on the wiki entry, but please, let's not try to use one anonymous blog as our only source. The reason for this wiki policy is that any kid with a computer can start a blog, and when all the comments are anonymous (with the sole exception of Travisseitler), it further removes any credibility of the blog. Thanks. Timothy6 20 (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Push4Cush

You blustered, "... anyone who takes one cursory look at the website and how they respond to anyone who disagrees with them would recognize this statement as false." I can only assume you haven't actually read the blog (and probably just took "one cursory look" at an interaction you were directed to) because there are a number of SGMers on the blog currently who have engaged in very friendly and respectful debate and have sometimes even been apologized when they have been treated unfairly. Some who immediately come to mind who are currently interacting on the blog are One Mom, Tony, and Fly, but there have been many more since its inception (e.g., Lawrence, Janelle, Joey). The only ones who were treated less than favorably were those who came in with both guns blazing, but that's exactly what they were looking for.

As far as CJ's blog goes, it's a personal blog encased in SGM's website and is highlighted on the home page with a link in its navigation bar at the top of the page. And it was started AFTER the controversy with Wikipedia was in full broil. Also, according to one Wiki editor who posted today on the SGU site, Wikipedia does link to other SGM happy blogs and Wiki pages. But no one complained about those. 'Nuff said.

Push4cush (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Push4cush

Comment from Timothy6_20

Hi there, please don't read a personal attack into my comment. I am sorry if it came across that way, it was not intentional (and I really don't think should be construed as such). I don't feel it necessary to defend my contentions (or "blusterings"!), I think they stand on their own, and it is there for others to judge. Thank you for dialogging, I wish you well. Timothy6 20 (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your conciliatory words. I think it did come across as a personal affront because I have personally spent a lot of time respectfully dialogging with SGMers and have consistently invited further dialog with them. I have also defended their right to be there, when others complained about their ongoing presence. And I have vehemently defended SGMers who joined the discussion and were, in my opinion, unfairly treated.

We are trying so hard to keep the blog a place where SGM members and those who have left can flesh out some of the ministry's more controversial practices. And some of the most unlikely, unexpected friendships have resulted between SGM members and those of us who have actively participated in the ongoing discussions there. At the end of the day (and in the grander scheme of things), we still have more in common than we have differences. :)

Push4cush (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Push4cush

I am glad to hear you say as such, and that you have "vehemently defended SGMers who joined the discussion and were, in my opinion, unfairly treated". I really mean that. It does seem though, that you are acknowledging that "SGMers" have been "unfairly treated". I was one of those. I went to the blog to try and dialogue with those attacking SGM, and was told, in essence, "it's nice of you to drop by sweety, but the Holy Spirit just hasn't revealed to you yet that your church is a cult". I didn't feel it fair to be dismissed with such little weight given to what I said.

Additionally, my main argument against the blog (in general, not my argument against it's inclusion in the wiki entry) is that the bloggers generalize the entire ministry according to a handful of (don't misread here, they are definitely significant) bad experiences and label it a cult. I want to engage the bloggers and call attention to any wrongdoings, but going about it anonymously on the internet just isn't the way to do it, and I'm pretty sure it's not the way the Bible prescribes confrontation or contending for the faith (my best guesses at why the bloggers are doing it; I'm trying to avoid accusing them of gossip and slander, though I am not fully persuaded that it is not that).

Thanks for clarifying your position on the entry, and I hope for a continued, balanced, and respectful dialogue about the matter.

Timothy6 20 (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were unfairly treated. I don't agree with all of the tactics used by some who post there, and I know I've been guilty of treating others unfairly (but have always tried to take responsibility when I feel like I have). And I really, really can understand the neutrality concern; like I've said all along, I think this will be a difficult call to make because the lines are being blurred more and more between authoritative and un-authoritative sources (as is evidenced by CJ's personal blog on the SGM site). But I appreciate Steve's efforts in hearing out both sides of this debate.

As far as your concession of a "handful of bad experiences," I'm assuming you meant to use hyperbole? Clearly there have been more than a handful of issues brought on the blog. And there do appear to be a number of common denominators among different people's experiences across SGM church boundaries. Also, a lot of these practices are spelled out in documents that have been published online, such as Brent Detwiler's "Effectively Serving Others Over You" guideline for submission to pastors. Among many dubious applications of Scripture that suggests heavy shepherding practices, he actually encourages care group leaders to subject even their opinions to the pastors and to not "pray against" their pastors but to "pray for" them.

Also, it's not necessarily unscriptural to warn people about those who engage in dangerous doctrines or practices. Otherwise, Paul really spoke out of turn in 2 Timothy 4:14. He doesn't indicate that he exhausted the Matt 18 process of confrontation before warning the recipients of his letter against him. There are other examples of this elsewhere. I'm not saying that the SGU blog rises to the import of Paul's epistles -- just that there is a place for warning others of practices that aren't in keeping with more acceptable expressions of biblical care.

But, again, thank you for engaging in meaningful dialog here. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I do appreciate your graciousness.

Push4cush (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Push4cush

I have deleted the comment I made here and relocated it to the end of the article since I realized it violated protocol to insert something in the middle of the discussion. Sorry all!

Novareproject (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional Statement by Look2008

Would it be fair to ask people making statements if they have any past or present involvement with SGM? For the record, I do not have any. Look2008 (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional Statement by Push4cush

Look2008, in response to your request, I am a former Sovereign Grace member.

Solideogloria80, you state, "And for the record, I know for a fact that some of what "Push 4Cush" said above is untrue and cannot be proven." That is the purpose of this forum here. If you have proof that anything I've said is untrue, now is the time to present it. Or are the Wiki editors just supposed to take your word for it when you allege I have been dishonest?

I pointed to a published document on the Sovereign Grace website and provided a link. I also provided a source Wiki editors could contact if they want to verify the details of legal contracts between Sovereign Grace and its former leaders. What do you bring to the table besides your accusations?

Also, for the record, mimarket makes repeated references to a blogger at the SGU site named SGUncensored. However, there is no one by that moniker. That's the name of the blog, not any one person there.

One other thought: Regarding the issue of whether Wikipedia can provide links to blogs - even in the External Links section: I think it will just be a matter of time before sites will find a loophole in this policy and, like Sovereign Grace Ministries, house their blog under the same domain name as the rest of their citation-friendly websites. SGM could have reserved a different domain for CJ Mahaney's blog. In fact, the domain, fromthecheapseats.org is available. But they chose instead to house his blog on its website, with a link to it in the navigation bar, as well as the upper-right hand corner of their home page.

So one could argue that SGM is talking out of both sides of its mouth on this issue - especially since CJ's blog isn't even open for comment. Like so much of the very modus operandi former SGM members have alluded to, what CJ says goes unchallenged and uncontested in every venue. Yet anyone who follows the link from Wikipedia to the SGM site is given full opportunity to visit his own, personal blog and hear how one man calls up short other ministries, Christians, and even non-Christians (such as Patriots' coach Bill Belichick for his lack of humility).

But because SGM has been more Wiki savvy in housing their blog on the same server as their website, it is given an unfair air time advantage over blogs that aren't couched within a website. It's just a matter of time before other organizations discover this kink of Wikipedia's armor and tuck their blogs on citation-friendly websites and thin out the remaining hairs of this controversy beyond their ability to be split.

Push4cush (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Push4cush

Comment from Timothy6_20

Push4cush states "because SGM has been more Wiki savvy in housing their blog on the same server as their website, it is given an unfair air time advantage over blogs that aren't couched within a website", can you show on the wiki entry where CJ's blog has been given any airtime? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I am curious if you honestly think that anyone is using it as a source for their entries? Timothy6 20 (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I didn't say the blog was directly linked to. I pointed out that it's easily accessible (one click away) from the SGM home page from its navbar and highlighted on the home page. This could be a strategy that more organizations use to stay under Wiki's radar and make splitting hairs more difficult.

Additional Statement By Mlmarket

push4cush: In your additional statement above you state: "Also, for the record, mimarket makes repeated references to a blogger at the SGU site named SGUncensored. However, there is no one by that moniker. That's the name of the blog, not any one person there." So, in response, "for the record" I know there is no poster named "SGUncensored", as I stated above, I've read the whole blog from the beginning and have been ready daily for months. I was attempting to cite SGUncensored as the source for that information, probably was not done correctly, my apologies to the community on that error.

But to clarify, I am trying to make the point that this blog, statistically, does not represent as many people as it may seem, due solely to its numbers. And, I was trying not to name names as specific sources, but I can. Trying again, take the most recent closed thread, "What's in a Membership Covenant?" and look at the numbers: 523 comments, 33 posters, 1 poster alone with 123 comments. In this same thread, one poster in comment #261 states that she checks the blog 4-5X a minute. In fairness, when I looked up this comment she does say that she doesn't really check it that much but she is speaking tongue-in-cheek and it's easy to infer what she means - she does check it a lot - especially given that she is the one that commented 123 times in this thread. She is also the one that has never been a member or attended a SGM church.

These statistics are indicative of the entire blog. Most threads close out around the 500 mark with more or less the same 33 bloggers give or take 10 or so. As someone said, that's not a lot. I am trying to remain neutral in the sense that I am not afraid or concerned about a well balanced page for SGM, I'm concerned that a few, mostly anonymous people posting about a few anonymous SGM churches would be given a link, setting an almost new wiki standard from what I'm reading by those more experienced, on a page that is about Sovereign Grace Ministries NOT a few anonymous churches by a few anonymous people. For instance, the quotes from Larry Tomczak already on the page, while not neutral, are an example of criticism from a good source, from SGM's history.

And I do feel like a section on the page about the transition, "belief shift" in the 1990's would be helpful, if it were neutral. It is a major part of SGM history, history that I was present for and would like to see mentioned. Mlmarket (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)mlmarket

Additional Statement by TBerg

Push4cush has I think has crossed the line saying that my statement that blogs are unallowable sources "smacks of filibustering." The word means "prolonged speachmaking in order to delay a consensus." This is what you have done. I have done the opposite. I quoted a wikipedia policy (i.e. straight to the point). And for your information, here it is quoted again:

“ Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. ”

Notice especially the posts made by readers of the blog are to be excluded, no exceptions. What is SGM Uncensored if not that? I see that cetain people here are personally involved, however let's consider the policies over our feelings.  Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 15:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Then Josh Harris' personal website should be taken down from Wikipedia's website. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'm sure there are many more SGM happy personal websites, blogs, and Wiki pages on Wikpedia, but that's one I found after a 3-minute "cursory" search.

If this whole issue were as cut and dry as you propose, Steve would have felt no need to hold this forum. Also, you did resort to faulty logic (characteristic of political filibusters) when you said, "especially not one sided blogs." My contention is that the SGU blog is not one sided.

Push4cush (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Push4cush

Comment by Look2008

Please bear in mind what is written above:

"Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here."

Can we discuss differing opinions/perspectives in a civil manner? I sense personal anger being brought by several people to what should be a calm intelligent discussion. Somebody will not get what they want - maybe nobody will get what they want - so let's just resign ourselves to somebody being unhappy and choose not to air our frustrations publicly. Talk it over with a friend instead :o) . Look2008 (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

ps. if you don't have any friends, maybe you should spend less time in front of the computer :o) Look2008 (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Brief Statement By Mediator

• Just reinforcing, this is not an official mediation, and anything I suggest, no-one is bound by. I am reviewing each editors comments, and I'll provide a more detailed statement soon, however, it seems the issue with this article is it may not be neutral. I am reviewing policies and guidelines on this matter right now, and will make a recommendation as to what to do next, very soon. Thanks for posting here. Steve Crossin (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've had a look over all of the statements, but I am still checking some references and policies, I should have a recommendation soon. I would ask that each of you try to reference your statements better, it saves a lot of time for me, trying to find references for each comment. If that is possible, at all. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have just been informed that more statements may be forthcoming, I ask anyone who is posting a statement to post it before this section, and to please be as neutral as possible. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Very well, it seems everyone has given their opinion, I'll have a look and give an opinion soon, please note this is not a final decision, it will be a suggestion as to what as to do next. Mediation is about building a consensus, not imposing binding decisions on editors. If anyone else wishes to make a comment, please do so soon. Thanks again. Steve Crossin (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• After discussion with a former member from the Arbitration Committee, and with a current member of the Mediation Committee, I feel ready to make a "verdict", even though it is not a verdict, as I have repeated several times, I cannot make binding decisions, only the Arbitration Committee can make binding decisions, and I dearly hope that it never gets to that, I sincerely hope that this issue can be resolved here. At the moment, I'm preparing my statement, it will be below very soon. After that, each party can make a secondary statement, as to their thoughts. Please, have an open mind. I have thought about this for a very long time, this has not been an easy "decision", yet, please note again, this is not binding. That said, I ask that consensus be considered. Thanks all for being so open to discussion. Steve Crossin (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts From Mediator

After very careful review of all comments, dialogue on the SGM Uncensored blog [2], where I strived to be as neutral as possible. I have also briefly reviewed this document, searched Google for sources/references, done some personal research on SGM and their history, reviewed Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and, after very careful consideration, these are the recommendations I have. If you feel I have failed to comment on something, please let me know in a statement below, and I will address it. However, before I make my recommendations, as I am sure this will be looked upon in the future, I feel I must announce a few things, to help indicate my neutrality to this subject.

1. I have no affiliation with the Sovereign Grace Ministries, their pastoral team, nor do I have any affiliation with the Sovereign Grace Uncensored website.
2. Additionally, I think it necessary to announce that I am a Seventh Day Adventist. Additionally, I have sought moral guidance from my pastor, however, that being said, I must note that I have not approached this article/dispute from my personal, religious point of view. I have put my beliefs aside, as a mediator must approach a dispute with a neutral, unbiased point of view. I just feel I needed to announce this, and, when I thought whether I had a conflict of interest, I thought about it, and I feel I do not have a conflict of interest here. If I thought that I might have had a conflict of interest, I would have immediately recused myself. However, I feel that I have maintained a neutral point of view. However, if any here feel this is not the case, please notify me.

Recommendation

• This all being said, after very careful consideration, this is what I recommend.

1. The external link to the Sovereign Grace Uncensored blog should be permitted. I am aware that this is a decision that will be met with a lot of outcry, however, I have reasons as to why the link should be included. I repeat, I am not affiliated with SG Uncensored. And, this action is not an endorsement of them, or their actions/comments, it is met with acceptance by Wikipedia policy. I will explain in full detail below.

External links are not subject to Wikipedia policies regarding reliablity, unless they are used as a reference. Historically, in Wikipedia, the inclusion of external links is whether the link is relevant to the subject, not necessarialy the reliability of the link in question, so the standards of reliability generally do not apply. The question is whether the external links add material value to the reader. It is plausible that the blog in question may add material value to a reader, as it offers an alternate view of the subject in question.

However, concerns have been noted, that the blog may be guilty of libel, may generalise the Sovereign Grace Ministries as a whole, as a result of alleged misconduct by the pastoral team, or by the ministry of one/several churches. So, in order for the link to be included, I suggest that

• The blog will point out the particular churches/ministries that the blog is discssing. Certain editors in this dispute raise concerns that the blog may generalise the Sovereign Grace Ministries, and, in my judgement, I believe this may be a reasonable concern. If the blog could compile a list of specific churches, then it would address the concern of the blog generalising Sovereign Grace as a whole.

• That being said, this is only in regards to using SGM Uncensored as an external link. However, I would strongly dissuade the use of the blog as a reference for any criticism sections. Wikipedia policy regarding blogs is that, and I am using the quote that TBerg used, as they are correct in their quote:

“ Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. ”

This here clearly states that posts left by readers may never be used as as sources. If this blog is used as a reference, then, it is of course, subject to Wikipedia policy, specifically our policy on reliable sources, original research, verifiability, and neutrality, however, if this is only used as a link, not a reference, then its use may be acceptable, and may not be subject to the same policies.

• Article must maintain a neutral point of view. This is a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Articles must be neutral. The addition of viewpoints that have bias, must be combined together to make a neutral article, that is, an article that balances each viewpoint evenly.

*Suggestion from editor- additon of a Controversy section.

• Generally, Controversy sections are generally advised if the content cannot be integrated into the article, and it seems in this article, that will not/cannot happen. The previous controversy section used the Sovereign Grace Uncensored website as a reference, which is not advisable, as blogs cannot be used as reliable sources, see the above reference. Howeverm if reliable sources can be found, then a Controversy section could be included.

• At the present time, that is all the issues I have to address, if I have missed out on something, let me know below. I would like to point out, I do not mean to be taking sides here. I am trying to help solve a very complex content dispute, and I will do my best to help resolve this dispute. Thank you all for your consideration and co-operation. Steve Crossin (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Response from Look2008

Sounds fair to me. Thanks so much for all you hard work, thought (and prayer?!), Steve. It is well appreciated. Look2008 (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, prayer as well. However, I'd prefer not to get my personal spiritual life involved here, but yes, I too sought guidance in this case. Steve Crossin (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Response from Push4cush

Thank you, Steve, for providing this forum for thoughtful debate and for the time you have taken to consider both sides. I know it couldn't have been an easy call for any who played a role in your recommendation. Push4cush (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Push4cush

Response from Potatoeater100

Self edit...misunderstood the rules - didn't realize debate was over... sorry.

Steve, thank you for the time and energy you put into making your recommendation.

However, in light of a recent post by the SGM Uncensored’s creator I ask that you reconsider your recommendation.

Some supporters for Sovereign Grace Ministries uncensored have said that the site is a forum for discussion and that all views are welcome. If this played into your decision please consider this recent post from the blog's creator:

"I’ve said all along that if you’re happy at your Sovereign Grace church and you see no problems there, knock yourself out. I really don’t WANT you to be reading or commenting here anyway. This site’s purpose — as it has evolved in my thinking — is for those who already have suspicions that something’s not right." Post #229[3]

She does not even want people happy with their church to read her blog or comment on it. While supporters of SGM do post, they are, as she has said here, unwelcome. Because it is her stated position that she does not want people happy with their church to read her blog, I would ask that you reconsider your decision. Judging by her statements she would not want someone who is happy at their church to find the link on Wikipedia and go to her blog, read it and then comment.

I would also point out that while many of the claims seem valid, they have at least once gone into the realm of gross irresponsibility by making the suggestion that SGM was responsible for someone’s suicide post #1[4], (while she writes a disclaimer, the fact remains that she posts a very serious accusation without any evidence), on the sole basis of an anonymous unsubstantiated email. I consider this irresponsible and not helpful at all.

Therefore, I respectfully ask that you reconsider your recommendation.

Potatoeater100 (talk)Potatoeater100 —Preceding comment was added at 15:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment- The owner of the blog has contacted me regarding this message, and stated that this user is "purposely misrepresenting my words to protect his church" [5] Steve Crossin (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Response from Potatoeater100

Self edit... misunderstood the rules... didn't realize debate was over... sorry

I have provided the hyperlinks so that everyone can read it and decide for themselves. Also, does she mean that both the "suicide" link and the "not wanting SGM Members posting or reading" link are misrepresentations or just one. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potatoeater100 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Also,

Here is the full text of the post including disclaimer added later: (emphasis added)

I’ve been mulling over this blog post for a few days, ever since my sister and I had our conversation about fear. What finally prompted me to publish it was an email I received this morning. It contained an attachment, which turned out to be a document - an obituary. In the email itself, the person had (anonymously, of course) written, in part:

I had a friend that was “lovingly pursued” after leaving Sovereign Grace. He committed suicide after not being able to “get away” from the church. SG shortly thereafter made it mandatory for all new members, and asked existing members, to sign a paper stating that they agree with SG’s policy of loving pursuit, and had a second document to sign about not suing the church or its members. Thoughts, anyone?

EDITED TO ADD THIS DISCLAIMER, FROM COMMENT #7: I need to point out that we cannot assume causality between the individual’s suicide and his withdrawal from his SGM church. Many, many other factors were probably at play which brought him to such despair. I do not believe that we can hold a church responsible for an obvious manifestation of mental illness and the devil’s own destructive whispers. I mention it here, though, because SGM’s relatively new membership covenants and waivers do seem designed to help them avoid such legal culpability

potatoeater100

Comment from Mediator

• I feel I have said this multiple times, yet it seems I must repeat myself. I cannot make binding decisions. Like I have said, multiple times, this has been a very complex dispute, with very controversial claims. I have done my best to uphold Wikipedia policy, and consider each individual's thoughts, when making a recommendation. The above statement is confusing, I am unclear on what you are seeking, I'd like each party to specifically state their response to my suggestions, I'm trying to gain a middle ground here. I have not done enough research myself to verify whether the claims of misconduct/abuse by the SGM is true or not, please note my comments have to be as neutral as possible, this is not skepticism, it's just the role I must maintain as a mediator, I cannot take clear sides here. Like I have said, I have done my best to make a fair recommendation here, also note I can be emailed here, and I also felt necessary to post on the blog here I've done my best here, and I ask that you understand my position. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Response from Timothy6_20

As I have stated before, I think that a criticism section is perfectly appropriate, given proper sourcing. If the group of bloggers have some legitimate evidence of abuse or other criticism, then I say it should be included. However, simply linking to a website that has anonymous stories, with absolutely no real evidence, I find inappropriate in an encyclopedic style article that maintains verifiability as a standard for content. The types of accusations the blog has made thus far would never stand up under any scrutiny whatsoever, especially in any organized judicial system. This is one reason why there is a law requiring that any accused has the right to face their accuser. No judge (formal or not) would allow such serious accusations to stand when they are made behind such a cloak of anonymity and especially with such a lack of verifiability. Likewise, no honest editor would publish such things and expect credibility. Therefore, I would like clarification on the conditions of the link, that is, it seems that you have placed some conditions (namely, the blog to cite with whom their grievance(s) lie, rather than generalizing their accusations against an entire organization with nothing that is verifiable). Again, if the group of bloggers have some legitimate evidence of abuse or other criticism, then I say it should be included, but I would absolutely protest inclusion of anonymous non-verifiable accusations simply put forth to slander a person or group of persons. Thank you. Timothy6 20 (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Responded to user comment on their talk page

Comment from Push4Cush

Hi there, Timothy620 ...

I'm sorry you're having such a difficult time with this recommendation. You are obviously very committed to defending SGM, which I can appreciate. I think it's great that SGM has obviously served you well, and you are loyal to your leaders. I also appreciate your attempts to engage in thoughtful dialog at times. But I was wondering if I could ask you for some clarification on a couple of your points ...

First, you say, "Again, if the group of bloggers have some legitimate evidence of abuse or other criticism, then I say it should be included, but I would absolutely protest inclusion of anonymous non-verifiable accusations simply put forth to slander a person or group of persons."

What kind of "evidence" did you have in mind? It's not like it would be legal to record conversations people have with leadership without their permission or by luring them into a very public setting, where they wouldn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Or are you under the impression that SGM leadership documents the details of their discipline processes in writing? Are you thinking there needs to be notarized statements by witnesses who are willing to have their names and contact information published on the Web? I'm really not trying to be sarcastic or disparage you; I genuinely cannot figure out what exactly you're asking for.

You keep trying to make your case in the context a legal paradigm, but this isn't a case of, let's say, spousal abuse, where pictures can be taken of bruises or broken bones documented by doctors. You say you've been following the SGU blog since its inception, so you're familiar with the stories there. So I really would like to know specific examples from these stories you've read - where allegations of shepherding abuse have taken place - of the kinds of iron-clad proof you are seeking.

Putting together everything you've written on this page, as well as your Talk page, it seems to me that no evidence in the world will actually satisfy you because you believe that these allegations should have been brought to leadership and confronted ... and then just left alone. But many have stated on the blog that they followed the biblical model for confrontation. Also, in Sovereign Grace, the pastors hold the reigns on this process, enabling them to completely run it off track at will.

As I mentioned to you before, I really wish, for instance, that Sovereign Grace had an appeals process in place (or a governing board that could investigate allegations of abuse). A LOT of this negative pub could have been entirely precluded if people felt like they had someone they could go to when abuses took place, instead of being dismissed and told to just take their wicked, disloyal, unsubmissive hearts to task.

In the corporate world, many corporations (especially publicly traded companies that are subject to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act) have found these preemptive measures effective in stemming abusive practices in the workplace, while protecting complainants from reprisal. These procedures also protect companies and organizations from serious abuse being swept under the rug (e.g., Enron and Worldcom), as well as provide a proactive measure to keep tensions from rising to a veritable boiling point.

Even when all of this started, the leaders in SGM could have taken a proactive stance and assigned a review board or tasked mediators to look into these allegations. Or the pastors who know they had been identified in these stories (even if not named) could have pursued the individuals blogging and sought reconciliation. Can you imagine how much wrath a few gentle answers could have turned away? (Prov 15:1).

Also, what exactly do you mean when you say that you will "absolutely protest" if your demands are not met? Steve clarified to us on the SGU site what he is asking for, which is not the same as what you're asking for. It seems that what you're asking for may be based more in emotional protest than logic - although I am genuinely open to hearing if you can think of specific examples of proof that I can't immediately foresee. You may not realize this, but he also requested that we put those details on the blog, NOT the Wiki Talk page. So what exactly are you going to be protesting? And how did you have in mind to stage your protest?

I'm also curious about something. Is your moniker based on 1 Tim 6:20 If so, do you really think that those of us who have participated on the blog have merely engaged in "godless chatter" and have thus "wandered from the faith"? I'm REALLY curious to know exactly where you're coming from here.

Thank you in advance for your response.

Push4cush (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Push4cush

Comment from Timothy6_20

Hi again Push4cush. Ok, you asked for clarification of what kind of evidence I would like. Anything. Really, anything that is verifiable. This is only in compliance with wikipolicies regarding external links. I want more than anything for justice to be done, and so I would really appreciate you and the other contributors to cite anything that could verify the veracity of your stories (I am not being sarcastic here, I would really love to see it).

Regarding wikipolicy: First, the blog and the stories told are (with one exception) pseudonymous. Second, the only people seeking to add this link are those who represent it. Third, the information is totally unverifiable. Fourth, it's a blog- and not one written by any sort of recognized authority. Fifth, there is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability.

Please understand, you seem to be taking this personally (and I know that you are one of the two lead commenters on the blog, so I do understand why) but I am not attacking you or any of the other contributors to the blog. I am not questioning your sincerity or the validity of your stories. I believe that many of your stories are likely true, and I hate the fact that any of you may have been abused (in your upbringing as well as by the church or your husbands). I want justice for you- and you will have it, God will avenge all wrongdoing! But the fact remains that these stories have no factual verifiability. I also understand your argument for why you don't have any evidence, but that doesn't change the fact that you don't. I do have compassion for you, I do, but I don't think that justifies publishing, or even linking to, the types of extreme claims that your blog is for (I do realize that you aren't the owner of the blog, but in the sense of the content being a communal property). Furthermore, I also believe that many of the comments on the blog are extremely derogatory and slanderous. Again, not all of them, but here is the pickle, how does anyone know which stories and comments are true and which are false?? That said, I hope that for those wronged, that you can find something that is verifiable that we can point to and hold the wrongdoers accountable in this life, God has commanded such. But until then, I just don't think it's right to publish defaming stories about living people (or for that matter, non-living people), especially because though you haven't always named specific individuals, you have included enough detail for others to easily identify who you are talking about.

Additionally, even as you and Kris have said, you don't need to be linked here. I mean, really, what's all this fuss about? You have optimized the blog quite well to pop up rather quickly in a search engine when someone types in any number of key words related to SGM. You have groups of bloggers from the same church who pass the word around quite a bit. So, at the end of the day, whether or not you are linked to shouldn't be worth getting upset over.

At the end of the day, I wish that you and I could meet, along with several of the other contributors to the blog, and that we could worship together (and I hope to one day do just that!), because I do think we have more in common than you may realize. I hate that there is so much dissension and controversy created here. Please accept my heartfelt apologies for any wrong that you have perceived on my behalf, I really am trying to do what's right here.

Thank you. Timothy6 20 (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Look2008

Push4Cush and Timothy6_20, can I suggest that you both exchange emails and contunie your "dialogue" that way? I know that you both have some degree of emotional connection with SGM and Wikipedia is essentially becoming the discussion board for these quite personal issues. Would they be better discussed privately? I hope you won't mind me saying, but neither of you are adding anything new to you previosu arguments regarding the question fo whether or not the blog link should remain. perhaps you can "take it outside"? :o) Look2008 (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to get clarification from Timothy620 on what kind of evidence he wanted while trying to express myself graciously and not like I'm attacking him. He's essentially saying there is no evidence that can be provided to prove spiritual abuse and, thus, the blog shouldn't be allowed. But at this stage that's pretty much a moot point. I can appreciate his perspective, but we're focusing our efforts on being compliant with what Wikipedia's asking, not everyone who has contributed to this discussion.

Push4cush (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Push4cush

Comment from Timothy6_20

Hi Look2008. I have been communicating with Push4cush on her talk page, but she and others continue the conversation here as well. so as not to leave "public" questions unanswered, I have sought to respond "publicly". Furthermore, I don't think my response is all that "personal", but it contains a compressed form of my argument.

Thanks for looking out, though, and I will try to communicate personal matters personally, as much as it lies with me.

Thanks. Timothy6 20 (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Krismum7

As the moderator of the blog in question, I would assert that the stories on the site speak for themselves, just as much as Sovereign Grace Ministries' own site speaks for itself. Whether the stories are anonymous or not (and some people have indeed chosen to post under their real identities), the fact remains that it's highly unlikely that a large group of people would spontaneously gather together to invent tales of a church's abusive practices just for the sake of discrediting the ministry in question - particularly since most of these people have expressed a continued commitment to their Christian faith.

In fact, I would be interested to know just what would constitute enough "proof" to satisfy the people lobbying against the link's inclusion.

Also, for the record, my words which were quoted above by potatoeater were misconstrued. I was discussing the blog's purpose, its primary target audience, not its practices. Yes, it is true that the site was not set up primarily for the sake of those who are happy with their SGM experience (any more than CJ Mahaney's own blog was set up for people who are angry with SGM). I was merely stating that on a personal level, I don't particularly desire to engage with people who are currently satisfied with their SG churches and attempt to persuade them to change their point of view.

However, that does not mean that all perspectives are not welcomed at the site! To the best of my recollection, I have never deleted comments from pro-SGM people. I have let them all stand exactly as they were submitted. Anyone who wishes to have a say may weigh in on any discussion, as long as he or she maintains a kind and respectful tone. A majority of the site's regular participants have spent untold hours graciously (for the most part) conversing with the folks who have spoken out in SGM's defense.

To take a statement I made in the context of discussing the blog's purpose and to try to twist it as though I were discussing the blog's practices is unfairly misleading and should not be permitted to discredit the blog or prevent its inclusion among the "external sites." Krismum7 (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Response from NovareProject

I realize that most of the conversation surrounding this topic is drawing to a close, however I wish to bring a few points to the table in response to some things Timothy has been saying. These may be ignored if deemed not relevant to the remaining discussion at hand. I present these as personal defense but have no doubt they apply toward more people than just myself. (waywardhippie and onemom, for examples.) To that end, I will not be trying to be as analytical or unbiased as I believe I was in my initial comments.

My first point applies toward the whole situation as well as just a personal matter... Timothy replied to my initial statement that materials are readily available which discuss disciplinary procedures, etc. However, the source cited is a Covenant Life Church specific document. Throughout this people been making the complaint that SGU bloggers take isolated incidents in isolated churches then generalize them to all of SGM - and yet cited an individual church charter as evidence for the ministry. Can anyone explain this contradiction to me?

If 'going about it anonymously' is an issue, I will gladly provide my identification information. I can even provide websites and newspaper links which reference me and touch on some of the things I have brought both to the SGU blog and this debate. One source is the Boston Globe, in which I was interviewed several months ago. If that isn't a reliable enough source I, like Kris, would love to know exactly what will be considered reliable enough by the SGM supporters to enable them to accept criticism of their organization.

Someone stated that 'most of the commenters are under church discipline'. While I cannot lay claim to intimate knowledge of everyone on the blog, I can state that I am not, nor ever have been, under church discipline with an SGM or any other church. I have nonetheless witnessed it on a number of different occasions toward family and friends and mere acquaintances.

This same person said many only attended for a few months. I was involved in SGM churches for well over ten years (and can provide names of several other commenters on the SGU blog who have been as well). Additionally, I attended not just one church but many throughout the United States - and outside them as well. When I make references to Sovereign Grace Ministries as a whole, I mean Sovereign Grace Ministries as a whole.

Referring again to the oft-made assertion that commenters are speaking of 'isolated incidents' in 'individual churches' with 'individual pastors' this may be true but is beside the point. The point I have been trying to make is that there is a strong pattern of abuse emerging in SGM churches around the country. Yes, they may have started as isolated incidents but when this many hundreds of cases are cited, most among different churches and with different persons involved, that reveals a flaw within the system at large which must be analyzed!

The stance I presented in my initial post was meant to be as objective as I could possibly present. I searched for citations for several days but could find no sources which speak negatively about SGM save for the blog in question. This is in large part why I feel it is a vital resource, since in order to make fully informed decisions people need to be able to hear both sides of an argument.

As regards the current suggestions which have been made by Steve in relation to the blog, I feel that you have done a wonderful job handling an extremely sticky situation.

Novareproject (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Response from Potatoeater100

In light of Krisium7's explanation I see that I misunderstood the intent of the post. I did not mislead with it on purpose, but just misunderstood what she was saying. I am sorry for the mistake and retract my assertion that she does not want open discussion on the blog.

Potatoeater100

Bravo, Potatoeater. These mistakes are easy to make when you just read one thing without being familiar with the standard modus operandi of the blog. In my opinion, Kris has made a valiant effort to always welcome dialog with SGM members and critics alike. I'm glad this misunderstanding could be cleared up.

Push4cush (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Response from Travisseitler

This recommendation sounds fair, and I am now currently working to "point out the particular churches/ministries that [I'm] discussing" in my contributions to the blog (and message board) in question. --travisseitler (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Mediator Comment

Stuck

Okay, it seems that it has been a while since anyone has responded here. My question is, does consensus now agree to the above recommendation? I'd like to know your final thoughts, however, I would ask that the blog have some sort of list, per the request, in the very near future. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• I accept with your final decision; that it not be a source for a section of the article, but a (clarified) link is acceptable. Look2008 (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at the blog over the last few days, they still don't have consensus to be specific in their accusations, they continue to generalize the entire ministry. Therefore, my protest stands, I still strongly disagree, but given the fact that the majority here (mainly due to the call given to those on the blog to participate here) agree the external link should be included, I will respect the consensus decision and abide by the outcome. Respectfully, Timothy6 20 (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• The inclusion of the link is subject to conditions. I did this to try to be as fair and as balanced as possible. Steve Crossin (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• I still disagree that the blog be even included as a link. If it's that important, create a wiki article about it (and see if it stands) and then wiki-link to it. The blog creator herself has given the purpose of the blog (even if she is not able to enforce her purpose as the practice) -- and I think the purpose, and other things, disqualify this blog as wikipedia quality. Just think, any yahoo can create a disgruntled blog on ANY topic and article on wikipedia -- dos that mean they can all receive an advertisment link on wikipedia? I don't think so. And what if I go and create a blog about SGM Uncensored, for unhappy ex-members of that blog to come and post their comments how they're dissatisfied with that blog. Can I have my new blog then linked here as well? If not, why not? I am just saying, let's not lower the standards of wikipedia by including this link, Respectfully,  Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 14:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. As stated above, I agree with the final recommendation, and am doing what I can to comply with moderator's request for congregation specificity in my contributions to the Uncensored site. --travisseitler (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. Push4cush (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Push4cush
• I agree. Geocacher301 (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Disagree with putting it as a link. It's of no redeeming quality, not appropriate for an encylopedia article. Not the right place to advertise it since there is no way to determine reliability. (note, no SGM experience personally, this blog/forum just isn't reliable source of information at present, just individual people's opinions) Gatorgalen (talk) 05:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In the interest of full disclosure, your User Profile states that you are a "fundraiser and missionary" for the Great Commission church movement, which has recently been compared to SGM due to the "shepherding abuse" claimed by commenters on the SGM Uncensored blog. Because this connection (warranted or not) has recently been drawn between the two organizations, GC is now (conceivably) implicated by the claims of SGM abuse documented in the blog. Since the evidence implies that an organization you work for could be negatively impacted by the link appearing in this article, it seems disingenuous to imply that your opinion is impartial ("note, no SGM experience personally, this blog/forum just isn't reliable source"). --travisseitler (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Please. There is no suggested connection even in that link. GC definitely isn't "implicated" by anything on SGMUncensored. GC's had it's own anti-forum for over a year, thank you very much. Again, this is a simple issue of wikipedia policy. There's no place for blogs/forums of this type in an encylopedia article, regardless of whether they're pro or anti the given organization. At least try to be objective and intellectually honest. Gatorgalen (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please remember that this is not just a vote, but more a forming of consensus between editors involved in the dispute. Steve Crossin (talk) 07:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Disagree. You have a church representing 70,000 people with fewer than 50 anonymous people writing complaints about it, many of whom admit they've never been to a SGM church. To break Wikipedia guidelines for such an exception seems unreasonable and unnecessary. The blog is these folks one shot at airing their complaints in a clearly unbiblical manner, and Steve for that reason alone as a believer in another demonination, that should be enough to make you skeptical of the fairness of their comments. Solideogloria80 (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with the recommendation. I had already been thinking all week what Berg recently expressed regarding the counter-SGUncensored blog and all of the ramifications that would follow additional blogs now seemingly able to link to the article. His questions are compelling. Additionally, the reliability of this link (formerly SGUncensored, now SGM Survivors) remains an impossible task and only dealing with "relevance" does stand to undermine the credibility of Wikipedia. For example, my son uses Wikipedia daily to learn about topics of interest. It seems I will now have to tell him to disregard External Links, because their accuracy cannot be trusted. Finally, although your recommendation seeks to tackle the concern of generalization by having people mention the church name and the nature of the problem, it does not then prevent those generalizations from continuing to occur on the blog because blogs and forums are by nature fluid. The solution is not permanent. If some of the allegations are true, then I would whole-heartedly endorse a Criticism section with reliable sources. This also allows for a proper Response to a Criticism section. But until that time, the one-sided blog (which its new name clearly indicates) does not seem appropriate as a link in the article.Mlmarket (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with the moderator's suggestion. Redrocket (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Disagree The link has no encyclopedic value, and really does not line up with policy. It also is an attack site, not just a site for discussion. A glance at it's new title (SGM Survivors) will tell you that it is purely meant to disparage SGM.. By the way that 84 page document is merely an information brochure. It is not legally binding or meant to be signed. I have no idea where the person who suggested that it was got his info from. The leaders of the churches do not have to sign any form of "Gag rule", and suggesting that they do is just promoting idle rumors. --Mark (Mschel) 03:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Request For Comment

Editors who wish to comment on the above discussion, please do so below. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Howdy all, I'm Steve's coach and I was looking over the discussion so far. Since there is only one External Link (to the main SGM page), adding a second would probably give the blog too much credence. Could I suggest something that has worked well elsewhere on the encyclopedia. Dropping it in as an explanation of part of a footnote. Specifically, I think footnote 13 could include "Unauthorized blogs continue to assert Tomczak's role in the movement's history." It would appear at the very bottom of the page in the tiny footnote text, which I think could be a workable compromise. Any comments? MBisanz ^talk 06:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. That seems like and excellent wikipedia solution. Kudos to all of Steve's (continuing) work and effort, as well as to your coaching.  Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 14:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz's idea is interesting, and he makes a good point regarding the weight/credence issue. I think before anyone on either side of the issue here comments further, everyone should read WP:External links. It is really quite clear. I'll bring out a few points here, quotes from that policy article (i'll omit stuff clearly irrelevant to the issue at hand). "Wikipedia articles may include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic.. or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews)"; "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable." "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." Under "What Should be Linked", "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." All this in addition to the already mentioned "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority" under "Links normally to be avoided".

Now commentary. There is no way to know if the stuff on the blog is accurate. It is not suitable for inclusion in the article because of the reliability - according the policy, this disqualifies it being linked at all. We all recognize it cannot be used as a source. There is not recognized authority behind it. It really is not complicated. The blog has not place AT ALL in the article. This just isn't the place for it. Again, not making a judgment as to its veracity, but whether or not its veracity can be proven to the extent needed. It can not. Sorry to all the supporters of the blog, but I hope once you read through the policy on external links you'll see why this is not the place for it. Gatorgalen (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz's idea would be fine with me. But will it be protected from incessant deletion by SGM members zealous to protect the ministry from any scrutiny? Steve had mentioned the possibility of that at one point on our forum.

Also, SGM has had quite a few links up there in the past. The link to the blog was usually one of between 5-7 up there.

Steve, we also have an area set aside called "For Wikipedia" that's still being added to.

Push4cush (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Push4cush

I moved the quote about SGM being labeled in the Shepherding Movement to a criticism section. The major complaint on the blog is that they are part of the Shepherding Movement. In light of this documented criticism, why would the blog need to be included? --Potatoeater100 00:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Potatoeater100 (talk)

Well, having read WP:EXTERNAL I'd have to agree with Gatorgalen, it adds nothing to th article, there is no way of knowing if it's accurate this just isn't the place for it.--Phoenix-wiki 18:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

General Changes not related to the blog

I propose the following changes:

Deleting the sentence: Neither the official website of Sovereign Grace Ministries nor that of Covenant Life Church contain any reference to Tomczak's role in their history, but nor do they cite any other previous pastors or workers.

1. Because it does not have a neutral point of view

2. It is irrelevant. If SGM does not have any official history than it cannot, by definition, contain a reference to Tomczack. A history page that does not exist does not contain reference to anything.

I also propose deleting this line:

In the mid-1990s, religious anthropologist Dr Karla Poewe contrasted PDI with the Vineyard Church. She wrote: "Vineyard is particularly attractive to the young and intellectual... People of Destiny serves a Catholic constituency"

1. Because there is no prior discussion on the connection between PDI and the catholic church in this article.

2. I don't see how this is relevant.

3. If a person leaves the catholic church they cease being catholic and are now affiliated with the new church. Therefore, they are not a "Catholic constituency"

If we keep it in, I think that the quote should be larger, putting it in the context in which she writes. There is not a period after constituency so I don't even know if that is the end of her sentence.

I'll just throw this thought out there: is she speaking of the Roman Catholic Church, or "Catholic" as the Apostle's Creed uses it, meaning the "universal" Church?  Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 14:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think the publishing section should be about SGM's publishing ventures not pastors who have published in SGM.

What does everyone else think?

Potatoeater100 11:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Potatoeater100 comment added by Potatoeater100 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Charismatic Chaos

I don't think that the reference to Charismatic chaos should stay.

Look2008 said "This is a significant detail showing the shifts in SGM theology."

SGM still believes in the gifts of the spirit. Perhaps they practice them in a different way then before but they do not adhere to John McArthur's view that the gifts have ceased. They state on their website

"All the gifts of the Holy Spirit at work in the church of the first-century are available today, are vital for the mission of the church, and are to be earnestly desired and practiced."

Also, SGM has a close relationship with Ligon Duncan who is Presbyterian but this does not illustrate a change in their beliefs on believer baptism.

What do you think?

Potatoeater100 00:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Potatoeater100

• Look2008, I think you have done a good job trying to detail a balanced history here. However, I would agree that the wording you have here leads people to believe that SGM agrees with Macarthur's view. I think you can say that SGM has partnered in ministry with multiple people and organizations with varying views on many things, that is true, but to single out Macarthur and then to add the bit about Macarthur's view of the Spirit is, well, misleading? I think it would even be more appropriate to say that Macarthur has changed his view on things, even inviting Mahaney to preach at his church. Thanks. Timothy6 20 (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-Protection

I've had the article re-protected for another 24 hours. I plead with all parties- Please discuss changes on the talk page before making them. As for the discussion on whether the blog should be allowed as a link, or in a footnote, under any circumstances, well, it seems to be deadlocked. At this time, I ask all parties who gave statements, to give their opinion on what should happen next. Rergards, Steve Crossin 04:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Carolyn Mahaney

I have included a short sentence on Carolyn Mahaney, CJ's wife, informing readers of her involvement with this ministry. I have created a page detailing Carolyn and her ministry. Since she is involved with this ministry, I would greatly appreciate any reviews or critiques of her page ("Carolyn Mahaney"). This is my first time contributing to Wikipedia and I would love any feedback you could provide! Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbittner (talk • contribs) 18:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

See also

Might we remove Joshua Harris and Larry Tomzack from the see also? It's just like you won't see Babe Ruth in the see also for the New York Yankees, even though he was significant. --Mark (Mschel) 02:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Information

Concerning the removal of information that is not up to par with Wikipedia's standards and unbiased stance. I have removed a number of sentences that are either hearsay, one author's opinion, or vanity for a particular individual that has no dealings with Sovereign Grace and hasn't for more than 20 years. Simply because there is sourced information, does not mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia. We are concerned with facts, not debatable points. Terevos (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What is your past or present connection with SGM? Look2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you ask that of everyone who disagrees with you on this article? Perhaps you should say what your past connection to SGM is. --Mark (Mschel) 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the question: I ask because Wikipedia has strict rules on neutrality and the majority (if not all) of the people looking to remove sourced content inconsistent with SGM's current mode of presenting itself are admitted SGM church members or associates. That is why I ask the question. Since you asked me: I have no past or present connection to SGM. What about you? Look2008 (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sovereign Grace Ministries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)- Protected- Again?

Ok, seriously people. Can this edit war just stop? This appears to be a long term content dispute. As such, I've requested the page be fully protected for a week, again. I would strongly urge editors of this article to add a request for mediation at the Mediation Cabal. Since March, I have been very busy on Wikipedia, and I feel that firstly, this article could use a fresh set of eyes, and the fact I have a large number of MedCab cases on my hand at the moment, in addition to many other things, I personally question my ability to mediate this article dispute. However, whichever mediator takes on this case at the Mediation Cabal, I will personally advise of the prior dispute. Best regards, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 04:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I think you may have been overreacting in this particular instance. I'm not sure there was an edit war (just believing the best). A revert or two does not an edit war make. Just encouraging you to be a little slower with the protection. Gatorgalen (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)