Talk:Every Nation Churches & Ministries/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Complex issues

Rick Shelton

~~Rick Shelton's church in Missouri~~

Rick Shelton’s church was associated with EN but never officially (or legally) joined Every Nation and are currently not associated with EN. This is mentioned in Steve Murrell’s May 2006 Leader Letter [1] Thelma Bowlen 09:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Blueboy - Rick Shelton's church, Life Christian Church in St. Louis, was indeed a part of Every Nation--in fact, the Every Nation logo appeared very prominently on its Website until recently. Its associate pastor until recently was Morgan Bates--a guy I know from my brief time in Waymaker (he was a campus minister). Also, Paul Barker, a former Maranatha pastor, was on the staff. Ray McCollum, EN's "teaching pastor," was also based here. See this archive of the church site from February 5, 2005 (the last date for which an archive is available). I find it hard to believe it was never officially part of Every Nation since it was listed in the Every Nation directory (do a search for "Life Christian" in the last archived version of the church directory).

Also, take note of the specific text from Murrell's letter: After nearly a year’s sabbatical from the ministry and of focusing on restoring Rick’s health, Rick and Donna Shelton have returned to the St. Louis church in their original role as senior pastors. On their break, they felt God spoke to them that they needed to return the church to its original roots—that is, a healing center for the St. Louis area. After much prayer, they have decided to change their association with Every Nation Churches. Effective March 2006, the Life Christian Church and Rick Shelton are no longer a part of Every Nation.

No dispute on His People's impact on EN when the two groups merged.

OK I think this is another place where we need clarity on what does it mean to be a member church. Its going to depend what "associated but not joined" means and I'll go to Thelma for clarification on that one. Also what is the underlying issue here? That is why would the reader care about Rick Shelton? jbolden1517 ^Talk 05:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

We are not disputing that the St. Louis church was affiliated with EN. But from the reader's point of view, the fact that they're no longer associated with EN makes this statement irrelevant and that's why we are suggesting it should be removed. From a legal point of view, the St. Louis church never joined the Every Nation convention of churches (our legal IRS classification). Thelma Bowlen 08:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that we have the structure statement Thelma's claim becomes more clear here. BB do you still have the same problems believing her claim? jbolden1517 ^Talk 10:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thelma and Misha's reply

Proposed Edits for History Section

~~others. On a much larger scale, Morning Star effectively doubled its size around the year 2000 with the addition of the~~

~~This South African movement was strong in Europe and Africa, there had been little Morning Star presence in Europe, and no Morning Star presence in Africa up to this point.~~

It is not accurate to say that when His People joined, MSI doubled in size. The His People Churches constitute a small proportion of the number of churches and number of members in Every Nation. By far the largest number of churches are in Asia – as well as the largest number of members. The next largest number of churches is in Peru. Thelma Bowlen 09:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Blueboy you need to respond to that one. jbolden1517 ^Talk 20:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Re-write for History Section

1. We'd like to request the first paragraph under the History Section be changed to this:

In 1994, Rice Broocks, Steve Murrell, and Phil Bonasso formed Morning Star International as an umbrella organization for their ministries. In 2004, Morning Star International changed its name to “Every Nation” in order to have a name that instantly evokes its vision to reach “Every Nation in Our Generation” with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to distinguish itself from another well-known ministry with a similar name. In a little over a decade, Every Nation churches and outreaches have been established in over 50 nations.

We inserted the second sentence to explain the history of the name change to Every Nation. Without this sentence, it doesn't really make sense, because the first sentence refers to MSI and the last sentence refers to EN.

2. We'd like to replace the words 'high energy' in the first sentence of the second paragraph with 'dynamic'. 'High energy' does not sound like an encyclopedia description.

3. In the third paragraph in this section, we'd like to delete the Core Values since they are treated extensively in a separate section. We'd like to replace the second and third sentences with the following 'Every Nation emphasizes church planting and has continued to grow steadily throughout its lifespan.' While it is true that other churches have joined Every Nation, EN does not 'actively recruit' and no evidence has been put forth to the contrary.

4. We'd like to re-write the last paragraph as follows:

An example of churches planted by Every Nation are: Morning Star New York, planted in the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy in 2001; Every Nation Christian Church in Auckland, New Zealand (2000); Every Nation Edinburgh in Scotland (2005); and church plants in the nations of Vietnam (1998), China (1999), Myanmar (2000), Turkey (2005), and the United Arab Emirates (1997). Due to the fact that Christians are persecuted in what Every Nation calls “restricted nations,” it does not release information regarding its missionaries in these countries.

Existing churches which have joined Every Nation include: Bethel World Outreach Center in Nashville (1994), In Focus Church in Augusta, Georgia (2002), and His People Christian Churches (1997) in South Africa. The His People movement was strong in Europe and Africa and up until 1997 there had been little Morning Star presence in Europe, and no Morning Star presence in Africa. By 2006, Every Nation churches numbered several hundred around the globe.

We added more examples of planted churches to reflect the fact that EN plants more churches than it adopts. We also corrected the language to describe churches that have joined Every Nation since we do not acquire them. Also removed references to 'remarkable bible teacher Ray McCollum'. While this may be true, it sounds self-promoting. Also removed reference to Rick Shelton -- while he was affiliated with EN, he no longer is and therefore this reference is irrelevant to the article. Also removed reference to Paul Daniel, who also is no longer with this ministry. Also removed statement that the addition of His People churches "effectively doubled the size of MSI at the time" -- Every Nation's official response to this is that we had 51 churches before His People joined in 1997, and 62 churches after His People joined (ie there were only 11 His People churches at the time of their joining.) Therefore the statement that they doubled our size is untrue.

Thelma Bowlen ^Talk 08:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Edits to Doctrine Section

Every Nation reflects a blend of influences, much like its predecessor Maranatha Campus Ministries did. This includING PRESBYTERIAN, BAPTIST, PENTECOSTAL, Word of Faith, Reformed theology, Christian Reconstructionism, and Charismatic theology (which itself was influenced by the Latter Rain Movement). Perhaps the closest analogue, however, is the Shepherding Movement. For example, one of the key founders and shapers of the doctrine, Steve Murrell, essentially mentions on his blog [2] that he "cut his teeth" on New Wine magazine, the official publication of the Shepherding Movement.

Every Nation, like many contemporary churches, adopts the doctrines and creeds of the historical Christian church. For example, Every Nation embraces the Statement of Faith of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) [2], the Nicean Creed and the Chalcedon Creed.

Maranatha is not the predecessor of Every Nation and this is addressed in the “on the record” statement in the paragraph below. Also, this section starts off by stating that the focus of this section is to capture the “official” doctrine of EN. “Christian Reconstructionism,” “Latter Rain,” and “Shepherding” do not form part of any “official” EN doctrine. Of course, in a movement of hundreds of thousands of people in over 50 nations, there are very likely people who have been influenced by every denomination and belief, including the Baptist Church, the Presbyterians, the Catholics, etc. Every Nation 08:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

EN/Thelma. Virtually every Christian embraces those doctrines, the Eastern Orthodox church embraces those doctrines. Certainly I don't mind a statement to the effect that EN endorses those viewpoints but the final statement needs to be much more specific. A good article for this Lutheran#Doctrine. You may want to use (and perhaps edit to fit Pentecostal#Theology) We need to get specific enough so that we get into those areas where EN disagrees with Baptists and/or other Charismatic. For example is EN premil? jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Lordship is reflective of the message of Lordship Salvation, as opposed to "Free Grace" salvation. Lordship is the emphasis on obedience as a condition of salvation. "Free Grace" proponents emphasize belief as the only condition of salvation. Practical application of the Lordship doctrine has been uneven within the movement. Some use it simply as a tool to confront those who may have considered themselves "saved" without ever taking a step of obedience to Christ. On the other hand, some emphasize obedience to the extent that obedience appears to be a condition of salvation, rather than a fruit.

This description of Lordship is simply not true. “Lordship” as it pertains to being a core value of Every Nation refers to doing one’s best to live a life that is “Christ-centered” – ie, living a life that is pleasing to God. Every Nation believes in salvation as a “free gift of God” by the “grace of God” alone. If anyone believes in Lordship Salvation as opposed to Free Grace salvation, they are out of line and this belief it not condoned by Every Nation. Thelma Bowlen 10:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

OK Blueboy back to you. Any evidence for the doctrine of Lordship above? jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Family" value, has a twofold meaning, however. Ministers are to be faithful to their families, but members must also be faithful to their "Spiritual Family". A spiritual family is taught to be a specific church movement (in a local church expression) chosen by God. Like a natural family, you can not chose it, and you can not leave it righteously unless God calls you directly to do so. The practical outworking of this doctrine is that members often find it uncomfortable to leave. Unlike the average evangelical church, where members come and go by their own volition, the sense of God's calling adds a significant weight to leaving. Those who leave, and those who are left often feel that the departer has walked away from "God's best", and in worse cases has rebelled against God.

These statements are untrue. “Spiritual Family” as it pertains to Every Nation is a term that refers to the larger body of Christ. Members are not told that they must be “faithful to their spiritual family,” instead, they are encouraged to value the relationships God has given them with other brothers and sisters in Christ. Every Nation in no endorses church members being told they are rebelling if they leavea a local church. Again, this section is supposedly dealing with official doctrine – if anyone has ever been made to feel that they could not leave a local church, then whoever said it from that local church was out of line. Thelma Bowlen 10:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Baby let's get out the VLI notes. Hey by the way I welcome the new policy of allowing people to leave more freely. Apparently most of us were all out of line for the past 10 years or so. Anonymou 04:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Blueboy, Same question? jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

~~With this emphasis, other segments of society, where the traditional Christian base resides--the poor, the addicted, the broken--are generally non-emphasized.~~

This statement is both unfair and untrue. Every Nation believes that anyone from any background can be a leader. In fact, EN has well recognized community outreaches around the globe including: medical missions to Colombia, Peru; scholarship program for squatter kids in Manila; community-building in Sierra Leone; orphanages in Africa; and inner-city outreaches in the United States. Thelma Bowlen 10:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Blueboy, same question? jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Scandals

I propose we delete the entire sections on Scandals

A great encyclopedia article should be distinguished from the random nature of posting sensational claims from anonymous blogs. Misha Arturovich 10:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've never read the anonymous blogs but underneath the scandal sheet their are is some substance. I think we are will probably drop the section but not so sure about the content. Sorry but I want to go into detail on these.

NFL -- I want to drop., or get rid of the weasel words. Blueboy do you want to dropI or can you propose a rewrite with a clear statement of wrongdoing and a source?

Paul Daniel -- I want to drop. I don't know any large institution that hasn't had a that kind of sex scandal. Frankly I'm not sure this one is even a scandal, sounds to me like EN did a pretty good job of handling it. Blueboy any objection to a drop and if so what scandal do you see, that is regarding EN the institution not Paul Daniel's affair? jbolden1517 ^Talk 03:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Greg Ball. Blueboy what do you see as the scandal here? EN is a large organization it wouldn't be that uncommon for some of the trusted employees to steal? jbolden1517 ^Talk 03:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Victory clubs I think is a drop. It appears from the description that whatever scandal may have occurred was prior to the VC EN merger. So other than a possible financial impact what the information content is.

Finally Tony Fetchel, Phil Bonasso. This one I'd like to kick to Thelma and EN. The way it sounds it involves reorg, removal of national level officers, the CFO of EN of USA being replaced and outside audit whose results are rejected by global membership, a failure to disperse funds.... The clearly is well over the line for a scandal worth mentioning. But I have found the existing page does tend to be a bit biased so what do you assert occurred? jbolden1517 ^Talk 04:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I got the full details of this by email. EN has some problems with talking about this publically. I can't use email communications but I am going to raise the level of evidence required. If we want to mention names WP:BLP will be in effect. If you want to go just by titles I'm going to demand good quality sources. I hate making mediation decisions based on emails, Blueboy I'm going to certify in advance this is unfair but I do think as currently written we would be in violation of WP:BLP. If you get good sources it goes right back in. Note that in structure she address the reorg directly so that's already in. jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Given the comments above regarding the financial scandal I've deleted the section. Part of it is a matter of taste. This article is heading in the direction of getting more serious. Most of these scandals were simply sex scandals involving ministers, and there was no institutional support (unlike say the catholic church child molestation scandal). The only one that does rise to a genuine issue is the financial scandal and we need a good quality source jbolden1517 ^Talk 02:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Blueboy on NFL

Here's a more detailed statement on the NFL issue:

In 1998, several NFL teams voiced concern about Champions for Christ, Morning Star's outreach to athletes. At least two teams, the Chicago Bears and Jacksonville Jaguars, claimed that players who had become affiliated with Champions for Christ were giving an inordinate amount of money to the group. For example, the Bears were worried that Champions for Christ recruited their top draft choice that year, running back Curtis Enis, to raise money for the ministry. Enis dropped his original agent in favor of Greg Feste, a businessman with strong ties to Morning Star and Champions for Christ. Feste had never negotiated an NFL contract before, and the resulting deal paid Enis far less than what was usually expected for an NFL running back at the time. The resulting delay in negotiations kept Enis out of training camp. Several Jaguars players told the New York Times that quarterback Mark Brunell, offensive lineman Tony Boselli and other players were very aggressive in recruiting their teammates to join Champions for Christ, even telling their teammates that they'd "go to hell" if they didn't join. [3]

More later tonight ... Blueboy96 00:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Removal of 4 of the External Links

I'm requesting we remove the links: Every Nation Exposed, Factnet, Discussion Forum dedicated to reforming abuses in Every Nation, Maranatha, Morning Star International, and Every Nation timeline. 'Every Nation Exposed' is an anonymous blog; 'Factnet' is an anonymous online discussion forum, 'Discussion Forum dedicated to reforming abuses in Every Nation' is a discussion forum with the exact same people from Factnet; and the 'Maranatha, Morning Star International, and Every Nation Timeline' is the same anonymously posted timeline that appears several times on Factnet. Thelma Bowlen 07:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you be OK with a separate section? Alternately can you recommend better anti Every Nation sites? I agree these are low quality but I want the readership to be able to find highly hostile reviews that is, where to find the hostile sites is valid information the contents are not. I'd go for some sort of short disclaimer or title or something. jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Updated Request for Changes to External Links

We would like to request for a re-classification of the External Links following the example found in the Wikipedia entry for the Southern Baptist Convention[[4]]:

Official Websites

Criticism

(Everything else)

Every Nation 12:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am the author of the historical timeline, currently posted and updated at http://www.geocities.com/ulyankee. I will admit that it is not the prettiest page on the web; however, I have posted contact information for people to contact me directly to notify me of any incorrect information which is my main concern. Everything on the timeline is from documentable sources which are clearly stated on the top of the page - much of it from public records including corporate documents, trademark records, etc. So I would like to challenge its removal due to its "low quality" (it has been online in some form or fashion for nearly two years and this is the first comment I've gotten on the quality of the research) and would like to request that it be added back to the links similar to the other non-official links like the FACTNet discussion thread and the "ReformationStation." Yes, I am a former member, so I wouldn't have any problem with the description being asterisked, having some kind of disclaimer, etc., but the timeline has entailed several months worth of research including ordering corporate documents from several states, researching archived webpages through www.archive.org, etc. and I have tried to keep the timeline based as much on the facts as possible given my bias. I believe it is a valuable contribution to the discussion about this group. If this is not the correct place to post this request/comment, please let me know. Thank you.ulyankee 13:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hold on. Is the request still for deletion or are both sides OK with just having a few subsections (official, etc...)? As for Ulyankee, you still are in the article (see footnote 19). The issue witht the timeline is really is not so much accuracy as suitability. The timeline is essentially personal "what stuff has happened to Every Nation that Ulyankee is interested in". It happens to be the best timeline available (Thelma, hint hint) but its unbalanced in its presentation. There is a real focus in the timeline on fairly small financial actions, which seem to be hinting at problems without actually clearly stating them (and thus taking on the burdon for the case). Anyway I'm going to see about this new proposal. If everyone is OK with this then I'll throw your link in and we'll discuss disclaimers. jbolden1517 ^Talk 12:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This is fine with me - thanks for pointing out it was still in the footnotes, though it is potentially easy to miss as opposed to being included in the links. You may also want to call it a "critical" rather than "hostile" source, particularly since that language in that specific footnote then potentially calls Every Nation's founders' affiliation with Maranatha into question, which is otherwise undisputed. "Critical" is NPOV and much closer to the intent anyhow. Thanks. ulyankee 19:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am the author of Every Nation Exposed and it is factual. Is it of poor quality- maybe but it has elicted over 2000 hits and hundreds of e-mails. One may disagree and say that it has no bearing on EN...well if it does not then no harm done. The BLog is explicit in asking the reader to consider the author's (my) experience. As George Orwell said "He who controls the future controls the past, he who controls the past controls the future." EN leadershi[p including Rice Broockes, Steve Murrell and Phil Bonasso were all very involved with MCM. The statement that they all AGREED with the breakup of MCM is just that...a statement that must be taken at face value. As far as the Timeline- it clearly shows that there IS/WAS a relationship with MCM and EN. We can all disagree about the degree and the amount of influences of this relationship...but the fact is that there is/was one.

Minor Edits

Just cleaned up a few typos/grammatical errors. See Page History for details. Thelma Bowlen 07:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Also made a few minor changes in light of what's been discussed here ... see page history for details. Blueboy96 15:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thelma had objected to some of the changes. I reverted she can add back the ones she agrees with. I oked the grammer changes but that was one very large change. After she adds in your changes she's OK with I'll make a list of the rest and let her reply as to what the issue was with them. jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply re church acquisition

An example of a planted church is the church in New York City in the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy known as Morning Star New York (MSNY). Acquired Existing... These are churches that choose to join – it is not mergers and acquisitions. “Acquired” is a loaded term that tries to imply that it was a takeover.Misha Arturovich 09:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Thelma or EN, what is the financial relationship between EN and its member churches? jbolden1517Talk 20:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it’s particularly relevant to the encyclopedia article because the point here is that Blueboy is trying to make his point that EN “actively recruits” from existing churches which is not true. EN states in its own core values (under evangelism) that it prefers to grow through “birth, not adoption” – this means it prefers to grow through establishing new churches, not by “adopting” in existing churches. We do not mind leaving in mention of the churches that have been adopted in, however, since this does happen (it is the exception, not the rule) but we have corrected the language used. Thelma Bowlen ^Talk 14:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply re. In Focus Church being formerly SB

~~remnants of a Maranatha founded church in~~ Beacon City Church in Boston,

There were less than 15 former Maranatha churches which later changed their names and joined Every Nation – this has already been addressed in the paragraph titled criticisms below. Again, Maranatha should not be the focus of this article. If that is to be said, it is equally fair to identify the In Focus Church as a former Southern Baptist Church, etc.Misha Arturovich 09:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What was the order here, SB -> Mar -> MSI or Mar -> SB -> MSI or ...? I also agree on the focus issue but lets separate the two issues out for now. jbolden1517Talk 20:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In Focus was never part of Maranatha. They were SB, then joined MSI. My point is that by repeatedly sprinkling the article with “Maranatha,” Blueboy is trying to imply that EN is a rebranding of Maranatha, an issue we have already directly addressed in the Criticism section. Thelma Bowlen ^Talk 14:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment re Blueboy and His People size

~~This South African movement was strong in Europe and Africa, there had been little Morning Star presence in Europe, and no Morning Star presence in Africa up to this point~~

It is not accurate to say that when His People joined, MSI doubled in size. The His People Churches constitute a small proportion of the number of churches and number of members in Every Nation. By far the largest number of churches are in Asia – as well as the largest number of members. The next largest number of churches is in Peru. Thelma Bowlen 09:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Blueboy you need to respond to that one. jbolden1517Talk 20:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Blueboy did not object to the correction on the date when His People joined MSI (1997 – this was way at the top of the discussion page) but he never replied to his assertion that His People effectively doubled the size of MSI. Since this is not true, I deleted that phrase in my proposed re-write.Thelma Bowlen ^Talk 14:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply re EN doctrine comment

Maranatha is not the predecessor of Every Nation and this is addressed in the “on the record” statement in the paragraph below. Also, this section starts off by stating that the focus of this section is to capture the “official” doctrine of EN. “Christian Reconstructionism,” “Latter Rain,” and “Shepherding” do not form part of any “official” EN doctrine. Of course, in a movement of hundreds of thousands of people in over 50 nations, there are very likely people who have been influenced by every denomination and belief, including the Baptist Church, the Presbyterians, the Catholics, etc. Every Nation 08:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC) EN/Thelma.

Virtually every Christian embraces those doctrines, the Eastern Orthodox church embraces those doctrines. Certainly I don't mind a statement to the effect that EN endorses those viewpoints but the final statement needs to be much more specific. A good article for this Lutheran#Doctrine. You may want to use (and perhaps edit to fit Pentecostal#Theology) We need to get specific enough so that we get into those areas where EN disagrees with Baptists and/or other Charismatic. For example is EN premil? jbolden1517Talk 00:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, will do, I will put this in the proposed re-write section. Thelma Bowlen ^Talk 14:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply re jbolden comment to Misha on Core Values

Family. After a person’s relationship with God, the next highest priority in a person’s life is his or her family. Every Nation does not believe in sacrificing marriages or children on the altars of temporal success. (Psalm 127:1-3) Misha Arturovich 09:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Misha but here's where I say you just crossed over to advocacy. If they are core values, what makes them core? What makes them different than other churches that don't hold those doctrines? What mainstream Christian would disagree with any of the above? If they are just slogans then we call them that, "Every Nation has a series of 5 slogans referred to as the 'Core Values'..." If they have real content then I'd like to see what it is. For example the description of discipleship below is (from a style perspective, I"m not asserting accuracy) what I'm looking for. It makes it clear what the slogan means and what makes it genuinely different. jbolden1517Talk 02:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

We see what you mean. We will do the re-write for this one in the proposed re-write section. We would prefer to rename this entire section “Core Beliefs” (since that is what they are). Thelma Bowlen ^Talk 14:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I did the name change but I should mention that the website uses the term "core values". You may want to make the change there as well. Blueboy, I'm still mising the reply to is there anything genuinely different unique about EN's attitude towards family that isn't shared many Christian, Jewish, Muslim... religious organizations that have married pastors?

jbolden1517 ^Talk 17:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Evangelism Doctrine Discussion

This write up is not factual information. Have they surveyed the membership of EN into the hundreds of thousands in 50 nations worldwide? At any rate, this is obviously written from an American bias, since the vast majority of EN’s members in Asia, Africa and South America are new converts, and they constitute the largest percentage of EN’s total membership.Misha Arturovich 09:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Misha, That may very well be true. Is it the case that the American EN is very different in make up than the Asian, African and SA EN and thus maybe we should discuss membership in two separate paragraphs? Now assuming that the quote above were designated as only applying to the US branch/division/collection (still need structure information) of EN would it be true? jbolden1517Talk 02:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the burden of evidence is on Blueboy to prove his statement that “a large percentage of new Every Nation members are not truly new converts to Christianity, but those with Christians backgrounds.” We do not believe that the American EN is that different from the rest of the world and does not warrant being treated differently. Thelma Bowlen ^Talk 14:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply re Discipleship Doctrine

This write up of discipleship is not accurate. “Discipleship” as described in the official Every Nation policy regarding Discipleship means “following Jesus and helping others follow Jesus.” (a copy of this policy is contained in the May 2006 Leader Letter on the EN website – add hyperlink). While it is true that submission to a discipler was standard practice in the Shepherding movement, Every Nation rejects this teaching as stated in its Discipleship Policy.

Misha, There is a discipleship policy? Excellent. Is it available on the web? If not is there a book? What is the policy...? jbolden1517Talk 02:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The EN discipleship policy is posted on the corporate website: http://www.everynation.org/en/top/about-us/policies-guidelines/discipleship-policy.html Thelma Bowlen ^Talk 14:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Blueboy96 returns

As I understand it, the whole reason the LA scandal got cut out is because without more information, we could have a WP:BLP violation here ... even jbolden admits it's unfair. As soon as more info comes out on it, the way I read it, it's going back in.

I had to help get my wife to California for a home visit, so it's gonna take awhile to catch up. Blueboy96 00:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification for Wagner and Fuller

Please indicate the full title of C. Peter Wagner to include 'Dr.'. Also, for any future references to Fuller, we need to say Fuller Theological Seminary so people don't confuse this with Fuller paint or paint brushes. =) Thelma Bowlen ^Talk 04:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Blueboy96's replies

OK, let's get going again ...

The main issue with EN's involvement in the NAR is theology.

Wagner and most of the New Apostolic crowd are part of the Latter Rain Movement. A big part of its theology is that Jesus can't come back until a "revived" church takes over the world and everything in it. God has supposedly been looking for a "covenant people" since losing control of the world to Satan in the Garden of Eden. These people, under submission to restored apostles and prophets, will be his "extension" in the world to take back authority from the devil. Christians are "little gods" with all of the authority of Jesus. The church thus has the responsibility to take over the world and put down all opposition to it. Anyone who rebels against the church, along with other "evildoers," must convert or be punished. Once the church has purged all evil from the world, Jesus can come back.

From a secular perspective, it's a kissing cousin to fascism. From an orthodox Christian perspective, it denies the Rapture, and also contradicts prophecy for Israel--or rather, twists it so that all of the Scriptures referring to Israel refer to the church.

Here's the thing--Maranatha pushed this rather openly, but Every Nation is a bit more subtle about it. I myself got out before I heard some of the loonier stuff, but several former members I was in contact with reported being told to shut off their tape recorders when some of the loonier stuff came out. And their statements of faith, at least when I was in there, left a lot of things out that you'd normally see in most pentecostal and charismatic statements ... but sounded normal enough to attract "normal" pentecostals. Compare KPIC's statement of faith (from an archive of their site when I was still at Carolina) to the AofG's statement of faith. Now, I've become a bit more liberal than the AofG--but I'm just proving a point here. If Every Nation has rejected this lunacy, more power to it. It's just that I've heard reports of some of this being taught from people who were a part of this bunch after I left KPIC.

More later ... Blueboy96 05:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt the New Apostolic Reformation has major things in common with Latter Rain, and even direct links, but I think the way you've described NAR above is far too general. Your description like a mish-mash of Latter Rain, Word-Faith, Manifest Sons of God, Dominionism etc, all of which are no doubt relations of or influences on NAR, but none of which are identical with it. David L Rattigan 07:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

So what did I miss? It's easy to get them mixed up--which tells you how off the wall this teaching can be. Blueboy96 13:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't that you missed anything - more that you didn't miss anything! You mentioned tons of things there that I'm sure Wagner and many of those in the NAR would dispute. "Little gods", for example, is closely related to Latter Rain (manifest sons of god and all that), but nowadays that terminology is specific to the Word-Faith movement, so far as I am aware. David L Rattigan 20:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Every Nation agrees that the above referenced "theology" is looney and unbiblical. I do not know if this is really what Wagner and the NAR believe but it is not what Every Nation believes.

Second, if Blueboy is going to continue making these allegations regarding our theology, the burden of proof is on him to cite reputable sources and not hearsay. Blueboy himself admits on his blog that his only experience with Every Nation was a two-month stint at a campus outreach of KPIC nine years ago. Furthermore, the Every Nation Statement of Faith is posted on the corporate website. This is not about KPIC. Thelma Bowlen ^Talk 08:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK what reputable sources can he cite which state what Every Nation's position is on eschatology and nature of God? I mean so far I asked a pretty basic question about premil vs. postmil. I should be able to get something like:

premil/postmil
EN doesn't take a position the member churches do
EN recommends XYZ

or whatever. I don't find it all unreasonable that a global religious organization would be out of step with American Baptist theology. Lets forget about little gods or whatever. You all run a bible school what is the systematic theology text used in it? jbolden1517 ^Talk 04:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, Thelma, it was six months, not two ... and it's not just me saying this, it's several former members. If it were just me, maybe it could be dismissed as the claims of a crank with an ax to grind. Check out Factnet and www.everynationreform.com for more information. If Every Nation has renounced this since I was in there, then like I said, more power to them. We'll just have to wait and see ... Every Nation has repented several times of some of the loonier Maranatha teachings, only to have things like this crop up later. And Tom Sirotnak alleges many of the same things went on ... see his account here. In any case, when I found out that KPIC used to be a Maranatha church only by accident, I find a lot of this easy to believe. Blueboy96 15:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the error, Blueboy. For the record, I just want to say that I'm sorry you had such a bad experience with Waymaker, and I also want you to know that if anyone taught any such thing during your time there, it was wrong and that's not what we believe. Thelma Bowlen ^Talk 09:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

jbolden's reply to Blueboy's point

Reading the above this may really be an issue of eschatology, see Summary of Christian eschatological differences. Most of the christian world is a-mil or mid-trib. Most of the protestant world is Postmil. Americans are heavily influenced by Baptist who are premil. From what I'm reading above it appears that EN is postmil. That's not really an extreme position for a global church (though very unusual in the US for an evangelical church). As a historical point regarding postmil lots of postmils did support the fascists historically, as did amils. In recent times postmil on the presbyterian side is associated with Theonomy which is fascistic. So I agree but as wikipedians we can't say that because we are showing an American bias. Our political culture is heavily premil in its orientation so Americanism is not a NPOV standard here. This could be dicey. David are you American? jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, we shouldn't mention that it sounds fascistic ... but I think we can mention that Every Nation holds theological views that have been called into question. Nothing POV about that. Blueboy96 03:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Called into question by whom? Baptists obviously premils are going to disagree with postmils. I think we just describe their doctrines, accurately without any editorializing. If we do it should be pretty clear where they disagree with Baptist theology (I'll ask Thelma how she feels about an explicit contrast, I'm a little worried we are introducing US bias into the article). Just remember it may not seem this way as part of the American Evangelical movement but EN is the majority, you live in an isolated enclave. :-) jbolden1517 ^Talk 04:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am British-Canadian. David L Rattigan 08:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good that will work for this. David you get temporary authority on what sounds fascistic vs. what's just not typical American if it comes up. jbolden1517 ^Talk 11:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Where we stand right now is an official statement which is that EN is neither Premil nor Postmil but leaves it to individual churches. That means the BB's stories about some churches being Postmil are consistent with doctrinal statement from Thelma. Now I happen to find Thelma's position here a little unclear. If EN is eschatologically neutral how can theocratic Postmil be unbiblical? While BB hasn't proven his point I'm not at all convinced the article is reflecting the situation as it exists in churches. I guess the next question is if EN is allowing churches freedom and individuals freedom on these issues or just churches? jbolden1517 ^Talk 23:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

My first contribution here, but I attend a church in the EN family, and I've stayed out thus far because Thelma is the official voice. But just for the perspective of an individual member of a church under the EN umbrella, Eschatological beliefs are normally left to the individual. In fact, my pastor rarely preaches on it because such difference in beliefs can be controversial, and since it's a theology we can never be 100% sure about it is best left to each person to decide. I personally am mostly A-millenial, my pastor is possibly Post-mil, and there are several members that are Pre-mil dispensationalists. As far as I know, such a lineup is common in other churches in EN, and holds the same for other theologies that aren't part of core (protestant) Christianity (as given by the statement of faith by EN). In my (albeit, limited) experience, EN does not require particular beliefs in such matters at the individual level. --DaveHarris 13:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

KPIC tie not contested

The KPIC tie is not contested so no reason to spend time on evidence. Basically a huge part of the marantha section is arguing what it seems the EN side is willing to concede. That those 15 churches did come aboard with their financial and staffing structures intact. We are still discussing the doctrine section and I need a better cite. Sorry, some of this is happening in email but I think Blueboy is OK with EN just agreeing "on the record" rather than having to argue the case. If not let me know. We'll be getting a quality citation in roughly a month. jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with it--I was thinking of moving a good chunk of the Maranatha stuff to the Maranatha article anyway, since there's so much evidence of a link there that it's really beyond the scope of the article. I do think, however, that the more egregious stuff (KPIC, Champions for Christ, Boston) should be mentioned in only a brief blurb. Blueboy96 15:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Other than the churches joining with financial status, name and staff intact what other evidence do you have? In other words what "egregious" stuff is there that is still in dispute? jbolden1517 ^Talk 19:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I read it wrong--I thought the stuff that was beyond dispute was staying in. But anyways ... KPIC has long claimed 1990 as its founding date despite corporate paperwork that says otherwise. Also, Beacon City Church holds itself out as being founded in 2001, but in reality it operates under the old Maranatha Christian Church of Boston charter ... so therefore, it is legally the same church. [5]Blueboy96 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In this case the stuff was by in large argument which was useful only in so far as it was trying to prove a point. That point has been conceded. For example if there is a debate whether Ford F series use good year tires you might want to have a line like "In a recent survey 200 ford F series cars were verified to have Good Year Tires". But we wouldn't include that line if we could get "Ford manufacturing reports that they use GoodYear tires on the F-series". Once we have confirmation that the churches joined EN intact: physical plant, staff and financial you don't need to show evidence of intactness. jbolden1517 ^Talk 14:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to move text from Core Values to Doctrine Section

Could you please move the first three paragraphs currently under Core Values and place them as the first items under the Doctrine heading, replacing the two paragraphs that are currently there?

The only reference that has been provided regarding Shepherding is that Steve Murrell mentions in his blog that he read New Wine magazine as a new believer. This was in reference to a book recommendation for Stephen Mansfield's biography of Derek Prince, not a doctrinal statement. Also in Steve's blog, he describes his spiritual journey and the good and bad things he learned along the way. Included here is a specific statement where he makes it obvious that he and New Covenant Church where he was attending did not agree with the Shepherding movement:

"New Covenant Church was connected with Ken Sumrall's Liberty Church, a "non-denomination" that was very "anti-discipleship." The preacher at Bethel was even more anti-discipleship. I really didn't get it, because discipleship was all over the New Testament and my small discipleship group at 1st Pres sure helped my fledgling faith. In a few years I would find out that the "discipleship" the NC and Bethel preachers were against was a completely different animal than the discipleship I experienced at 1st Pres. The 1st Pres version helped me follow Jesus. The other version tended to get people to depend on a human "shepherd," rather than the Lord."

Thelma Bowlen ^Talk 08:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say this is pretty strong counter evidence, BB. Any response, that is evidence of the connection between Shepherding and EN? jbolden1517 ^Talk 23:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Core beliefs

[Snipped content since its been added to article]

The problem with the rest is that it is apologetic. I need to make it more neutral. I'm going to add it slowly but this is definitely open to discussion. Consider it all proposed wording. jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Lordship

Lordship means Christ-centeredness. Lordship is proclaiming that Jesus Christ is now the center of a person’s life and he or she is committed to obeying God’s Word and following His will instead of his or her own. (Luke 6:46-49)

Every Nation values Lordship because the Bible says that “no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). Lordship establishes that Jesus Christ is both Savior and Lord (Acts 2:36) – God incarnate, the Word made flesh (John 1:14) who took the form of a servant to reconcile us to the Father (2 Corinthians 5:18) so that we might have eternal life (John 3:16). As the “Word made flesh,” the words Jesus spoke thus have ultimate authority in the life of every believer. Therefore, Every Nation believes that "in everything He must have the supremacy" (Col 2:18), not just in church matters, but in all of life - not just on Sunday, but Monday through Sunday.

I'd love to see you elaborate here. That is explain how this is different than other evangelicals. jbolden1517 ^Talk 01:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Evangelism

Evangelism is the core value of reaching lost people. Every Nation values evangelism because lost people matter to God (2 Peter 3:9, NIV) and we have been called to imitate Jesus Christ, who came to “seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10, NASB).

The Bible says that God has called each of us to the "ministry of reconciliation" and has given us a "message of reconciliation“ (2 Cor 5:18-19). Since reconciliation is first and foremost a relational word (rather than a theological word), then people, especially "lost" people, matter to God. Therefore, to value evangelism is to value relationships with people, especially people who do not know God. For this reason, Every Nation's goal is to grow its churches primarily through lost people being saved, as opposed to those who are already Christians transferring into its churches, and new churches being established.

This kind of reads like gibberish to me. I obviously can't object to your statement of belief but I have a feeling there is some more here that deserves being blown out.

For starters

What is a "relational word"
What is a "theological word"
If reconciliation were a theological word would that imply that the lost people didn't matter to God or that they wouldn't matter especially? (Which is what the structure of this argument hints at).

jbolden1517 ^Talk 01:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. Relational and theological are not the right words. I will fix this and post a suggested re-write on Monday. Thelma Bowlen ^Talk 09:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Re-write for Evangelism

Evangelism The Bible says that God has called each of us to the "ministry of reconciliation" and has given us a "message of reconciliation" (2 Cor 5:18-19). Since reconciliation is about re-establishing broken relationships, this means that God desires us to bring people, especially "lost" people, back into a relationship with Him. Therefore, to value evangelism is to value relationships with people, especially people who do not know God. Thelma Bowlen ^Talk 04:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Discipleship

A disciple is someone who follows Jesus (Luke 9:23, NIV). Discipleship is helping people follow the Lord Jesus, and love God, their natural and church families, and the lost (Matt 22:37-40). In his book, Every Nation in Our Generation, Rice Broocks provides the following definition: “Discipleship is the process whereby men and women follow Christ, are trained in His Word, grow to maturity and learn to replicate themselves in others” (p. 103). In other words, Discipleship means following and becoming more like Christ, not the person who is discipling you.

Every Nation values discipleship because Christ's last command to all Christians was to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20, NIV). Therefore, Every Nation is committed to being disciples and making disciples.

Given these two definitions the distinction between discipleship and lordship is unclear. jbolden1517 ^Talk 11:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Leadership

Every Nation believes every Christian is called to be a leader and seeks to raise up Christian leaders in all walks of life -- leaders in the family, in business, in government, in education, in the military, in professional callings, in the media, in arts, and in athletics. Every Nation's goal is to encourage servant leadership -- character-based, Christ-centered leadership that is rooted in biblical principles. Biblical leadership emphasizes service, not glory (Mark 10;33-35, NIV); encourages guidance, not control (2 Timothy 2:2, NIV); and is about relationship, not rules (1 Corinthians 4:15-16, NIV). The primary avenue for training leaders in Every Nation is ENLI (Every Nation Leadership Institute) – a two-year Bible school for lay people.

Because the ministry also has a desire to reach the future leaders of the nations, Every Nation also has a vision to reach the next generation of leaders that are currently on high school and university campuses. As outlined in the book of the same title, Every Nation believes in the principle: “Change the Campus, Change the World.”

Again I think the description is really really vague. Servant leadership is standard christian. But what does "relationship not rules" imply? That is very wide open to interpretation. 12:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Family

Family is a core value because Every Nation believes that, after your relationship with God, your relationship with your family is the highest priority in a believer’s life. The Bible says: "Unless the LORD builds the house, its builders labor in vain" (Psalm 127:1, NIV). In other words, the priorities in a Christian’s life should be: 1) your relationship with God; 2) your relationship with your spouse; 3) your relationship with your children; and 4) your career and/or ministry.

Every Nation also values family because it has believes ministry should be “multi-generational.” That is, it believes that success is when the vision and values of a ministry are passed down from generation to generation. Thelma Bowlen ^Talk 19:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

How does that quote imply that fairly complex doctrine (as the statement indicates? Other than that this one is nicely clear. But is where the whole idea of having couples act as joint pastors comes from? jbolden1517 ^Talk 05:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Blueboy core beliefs

I'm pulling these for now till we get some citations. If you can cite a good source where EN makes these claims or a reputable source claims they makes these claims they can go back in.

Lordship is reflective of the message of Lordship Salvation, as opposed to "Free Grace" salvation. Lordship is the emphasis on obedience as a condition of salvation. "Free Grace" proponents emphasize belief as the only condition of salvation. Practical application of the Lordship doctrine has been uneven within the movement. Some use it simply as a tool to confront those who may have considered themselves "saved" without ever taking a step of obedience to Christ. On the other hand, some emphasize obedience to the extent that obedience appears to be a condition of salvation, rather than a fruit.

Evangalism: Every Nation recognizes that many Christian movements, especially Charismatic movements, have lost their emphasis on evangelism, which was the central feature of Christ's mission. Every Nation leader Rice Broocks has even given a new term to Matthew 28:18-20, which has traditionally been called the Great Commission--The Apostolic Mandate. Despite this core emphasis, a large percentage of new Every Nation's members are not truly new converts to Christianity, but those with Christian backgrounds who have received life transforming Christian training.

Discipleship is a common Christian term which can mean any number of things, from following up a new believer, to personal training, to radical commitment to Christ, to absolute surrender of your life to another person, as was taught in the Shepherding Movement. Every Nation practice and doctrine reflects the influence of all of these. While Every Nation leaders and members would explicitly disclaim the need to surrender absolutely to another human being, the Every Nation concept of discipleship has definitely included submission to a "discipler", and it is this concept which makes Every Nation practice distinct from standard evangelical practice. In fact, embedded into the entire structure of Every Nation is the centrality of Authority. One should always be in relationship with "a Paul, a Barnabas, and a Timothy" that is someone to whom their life is submitted, someone who is a peer, and someone they are discipling.

Leadership Every Nation believes that every person is called to be a leader. This is intended as a corrective to the traditional separation between clergy and laity within the Christian Church. Every Nation has been very effective at developing and reaching leaders, an area notably absent from most Christian expressions. This is part of the rationale behind Every Nation's heavy emphasis on Campus outreach--this is where society's new leaders will be drawn from. With this emphasis, other segments of society, where the traditional Christian base resides--the poor, the addicted, the broken--are generally non-emphasized.

Family Every Nation teaches the importance of a minister's investment in his family. This is meant as a way of combatting the traditional pattern of ministers who give more time to their ministry than their family and children. The "Family" value, has a twofold meaning, however. Ministers are to be faithful to their families, but members must also be faithful to their "Spiritual Family". A spiritual family is taught to be a specific church movement (in a local church expression) chosen by God. Like a natural family, you can not chose it, and you can not leave it righteously unless God calls you directly to do so. The practical outworking of this doctrine is that members often find it uncomfortable to leave. Unlike the average evangelical church, where members come and go by their own volition, the sense of God's calling adds a significant weight to leaving. Those who leave, and those who are left often feel that the departer has walked away from "God's best", and in worse cases has rebelled against God.

Nicene creed

OK this isn't a mediation issue so I have no authority here (blueboy hasn't mentioned it) Its just a comment from Jeff. Are you sure you mean the Nicene creed of 325 and not the one of 381? I can buy Apostle's Creed of 325 or Nicene 381 but not the assertion of the Nicene creed 325. (BTW this may be a translation issue if you are quoting a non english book). To the best of my knowledge there are 0 evangelical churches which utilize the 325 creed that's almost exclusively Eastern Rite churches. jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for followup here. Have you checked on this? jbolden1517 ^Talk 09:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change to other groups section

I propose that the "Links to Maranatha" section be changed to read the following:

Several of Every Nation's pastors and ministries have past ties to Maranatha Campus Ministries, a highly controversial charismatic/pentecostal organization from the 1980s. Like many organizations influenced by the Shepherding Movement, Maranatha became very authoritarian during its existence. Leaders exercised strict control over members' lives. It was expelled from two universities in the early 1980s amid allegations of cult-like behavior. An ad hoc group called in by Maranatha to help answer accusations that it was a cult issued a very critical report in 1983. The report concluded that unless Maranatha changed, "we would not recommend this organization to anyone." The group dissolved in 1989 amid continued scrutiny from former members, the press and university officials.

I'm not sure why we need to go into details on Maranatha in the EN article.

If you say an organization is controversial and then leave it there, people are gonna wonder, "Why?" Sorry, it's the journalist in me coming out.

We link to Maranatha with the full story. In the above you never actually say anything about why its controversial. The stuff above simply says they were controversial and then proves they were controversial (campus expulsions...) But you don't have to do that here. jbolden1517 ^Talk 22:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Every Nation has disavowed Maranatha's more controversial teachings on several occasions. Most recently, in a May 2006 "Leader Letter," Murrell specifically repudiated any practices and teachings that were "controlling, coercive, or intrusive, or that violate biblical principles (or) the priesthood of the believer." [6]

I'd rather just cite a source and leave it with that. Why indicate the most recent example.

How about this, then?

Every Nation has gone to several lengths to disavow Maranatha's more controversial practices and teachings. For ::example, in a May 2006 "Leader Letter," Murrell specifically repudiated any practices and teachings that were ::"controlling, coercive, or intrusive, or that violate biblical principles (or) the priesthood of the believer." ::[7]

Every Nation has gone to several lengths to disavow Maranatha's more controversial practices and teaching specifically repudiated any practices and teachings that were ::"controlling, coercive, or intrusive, or that violate biblical principles (or) the priesthood of the believer. followed by the reference to [8]. I'll go with this. jbolden1517 ^Talk 22:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

However, several former Every Nation members have become acquainted with Maranatha's past and contend that Every Nation is a repackaged Maranatha--a claim strongly denied by Every Nation.

This denial notwithstanding, there is considerable evidence that Every Nation is, at the very least, a direct descendant of Maranatha. A full discussion of this evidence is beyond the scope of this article; see the Maranatha article for more details. However, a few of the organizational ties should be noted here.

Then include the evidence, in a blurb form, on KPIC, Champions for Christ and Beacon City.

How does that grab everyone? Blueboy96 16:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You haven't proven descent. You have certainly proven they took 15 churches in tact and the article now reflects this. The problem is you need to show some relationship between Maranatha and the other several hundred churches or show how the Maranatha churches birthed the other churches. Descent is not easy to prove. Something like "the US wing/division... is mainly made up of former Maranatha churches" may be justified but what about the rest?

jbolden1517 ^Talk 19:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That's relatively easy to prove:

* In 1996 Champions for Christ International, Every Nation's outreach to athletes, filed the old Maranatha-era Champions for Christ logo and the name "Champions for Christ" with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Champions for Christ International was incorporated in Texas in 1990 and joined Every Nation at its formation in 1994. In this 1996 filing, Champions for Christ claimed the logo's first use was in October 1986--thus claiming that it is the same entitity as the Maranatha-era Champions for Christ.

*Shortly before Maranatha broke up, a new entitity called "Maranatha Campus Ministries, International, Inc. was incorporated in Florida. The original Maranatha had been incorporated in Kentucky. This entitity was involved in a large amount of corporate activity in 1990, most notably assuming the old Maranatha's P.O. box in Gainesville, Florida. Although there has been no verifiable activity from this corporation since 1993, it still has valid certificates of authority in North Carolina and Texas as of 2006--both of which are major bases of operation for Every Nation. Ron Lewis, pastor of one of Every Nation's most important churches, King's Park International Church in Durham, North Carolina; is the North Carolina registered agent for "Maranatha Campus Ministries, International," and the registered agent address is the same location where KPIC met from the early 1990s until 2002. He also appears as the corporation's vice president in its Texas certificate of authority. However, he claimed to have left Maranatha sometime in the late 1980s because he felt the organization was too authoritarian.

* Fifteen former Maranatha churches have joined Every Nation, many of which still operate under corporate paperwork dating to their Maranatha days. While this is a small percentage of the total, three of the organization's four most important churches for most of its history--KPIC, Metro MorningStar Church in Northern Virginia and Every Nation Palos Verdes near Los Angeles--operate under amended versions of their old Maranatha corporate paperwork. The fourth, flagship church Bethel World Outreach Center in Brentwood (near Every Nation's headquarters), has a board of directors comprised almost entirely of former Maranatha pastors.

Need more? Please let me know ... Blueboy96 22:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I need more and it can't be related to the 15 churches. All 3 of those pieces of evidence are just proving what's already been conceded. That the 15 churches joined as with their old finances intact and with their old staff intact. So yes they had the same paper work, the same corporate identify and the same staff. You need to prove something about the other several hundred churches. jbolden1517 ^Talk 22:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Blueboy's proposed changes, part 2

OK, how about this ... when Life Christian Church was briefly affiliated with Every Nation, one of its associate pastors was Paul Barker, a longtime former Maranatha pastor who is (or was) dean of Every Nation Leadership Institute. Another one was Morgan Bates, a longtime operative in the campus ministry at my old church, KPIC (in fact, he was based at Carolina when I was there). Bates, of course, was directly trained by Ron Lewis, a former Maranatha pastor. Mind you, this was a church that never "officially" joined Every Nation, yet had one of its top leaders and a major operative from one of the "Big Four" churches as associate pastors.

There's also the question of Morning Star Christian Church of Lawrence, Kansas, which was a part of Every Nation until late 2005. A lot of circumstantial evidence indicates that it is actually a reconfigured version of Maranatha Christian Church of Lawrence--the home base for the K-State chapter that got the boot in '83. That church changed its name to New Hope Christian Fellowship in 1990 and officially "dissolved" in 1992. However, only four months later--in March '93--Morning Star Christian Church of Lawrence incorporates. Its pastor and registered agent is John McDermott, who filed himself as the Kansas registered agent of "Maranatha Campus Ministries, International"--the infamous Florida corporation--in May 1990. According to an archived version of the church Website, Morning Star Lawrence traces its roots to a campus ministry planted at the University of Kansas in 1980, but was not formally founded as a church body until 1992. [9] Now, Maranatha Christian Church of Lawrence was incorporated sometime in the early 1980s, and McDermott was its pastor at least during the waning days of Maranatha. Sounds to me like either this is one whopper of a coincidence, or we have an instance where Morning Star Lawrence was trying the same thing KPIC is doing now--misleading people about its founding date to hide its Maranatha past. The current site includes almost no reference to its Every Nation past, except for a picture of the old Morning Star logo on the front.

Oh, and jbolden, I can go with this: Every Nation has gone to several lengths to disavow Maranatha's more controversial practices and teachings, specifically repudiating any practices and teachings that are "controlling, coercive, or intrusive, or that violate biblical principles (or) the priesthood of the believer. [10].

Hope this helps, guys ... I have to say there's a lot of sifting I had to do here. Blueboy96 00:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

OK so what you are showing is there was additional Maranatha staff. I think you've made a very strong case for the US. Enough probably to just assert that the US organization came from Maranatha. The problem is globally there is no connection, and since EN is very global.... What's the connection with EN of Dublin or EN of Milan? There are 4 in Nigeria how are did they come from Maranatha? jbolden1517 ^Talk 05:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The Philippines is definitely a former Maranatha outfit as well ... that's Murrell's fief, and he's run that ministry since the 1980s. And EN Dublin was once part of His People, which itself began when a university campus ministry in South Africa merged with a former Maranatha church in Johannesburg. Even without that, it seems to me that the American side dominates the organization as a whole, which only adds to the evidence of former Maranathans dominating the organization.

I think something about KPIC and Beacon City should be included back in as well, if only because the Lawrence church employed pretty much the same dodge that they did--claim a formal founding as a church body well after Maranatha dissolved. Only difference was that the Lawrence church was smart enough to reincorporate under a brand-new charter, so it can argue that it's legally a different church. Perfect way to hide the past--assume that nobody will bother to connect the dots. Trust me, jbolden--I've seen that a lot in my digging with these guys.Blueboy96 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

OK it seems like we are going to go church by church. Because you are contradicting the core idea that there only 15 churches, which is fine but then Thelma's whole arguement is based on that. So I guess what I'm going to do is put together the list of current churches with a few columns and have you and Thelma edit. That's a tad bit of work but hopefully I'll get it setup this weekend if not then during the week.

Wow I'll deserve a medal for this mediation. jbolden1517 ^Talk 23:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah, why not have Thelma list the 15 churches that are beyond all doubt old Maranatha churches. I've already done three-fifths of the work for her. And it'll be way easier on you. ;) Blueboy96 02:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you do deserve a medal - this is hard work! We have had to dig a bit since we don't keep records on this stuff, but the best of our knowledge here is the list of former Maranatha churches that became a part of EN (we stated 15 in our statement in order to err on the high side):

KPIC in Durham, NC
Beacon City Church in Boston
Every Nation Palos Verdes in California
Morning Star Studio City in California
MetroMorningstar of Sterling, VA
His People Christian Church in Johannesburg, South Africa
VCF - U-belt, Philippines
VCF - Makati, Philippines
VCF - Cebu, Philippines
VCF - Tuguegarao, Philippines
VCF - Baguio, Philippines
VCF - Dagupan, Philippines
Harvest Valley Christian Church in Pleasanton, CA
Grace Christian Fellowship in Corvallis, OR

Morning Star Church in Lawrence, Kansas was formerly a Maranatha church which also joined EN but they have since left Every Nation (in 2005). Thelma Bowlen ^Talk 03:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You missed two ... Harvest Valley Christian Church in Pleasanton, California--the artists formerly known as Maranatha Christian Church of the East Bay. Also Grace Christian Church in Corvallis, Oregon--the artists formerly known as Maranatha Christian Church of Corvallis. Granted, that's only seven churches in the U.S.--but three out of four key churches. And the fourth has a board comprised almost entirely of Maranatha pastors.Blueboy96 04:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I reading what I think I'm reading we are down to debating 2 churches! Well I guess my big blue chart scared both of you :-). OK I'll go with BlueBoy's list for now. Thelma if you disagree with his two feel free to remove and just indicate on the talk page an alternate origin. 13:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We checked with the pastor in Pleasanton and Corvallis, Blueboy is correct so we've added these two churches to our list above. Thelma Bowlen ^Talk 08:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed changes to "Links to Other Groups" section

I propose to tighten it up a bit and recognize that there is, in fact, still some debate over whether Every Nation and Maranatha are one and the same. More later; jbolden, we really need to archive some of this, it's getting to be a humdinger. Blueboy96 16:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, here we go:

Well you know my feeling about "some X think Y". Its weasel words. Given anything there is somebody who thinks that.

Some of Every Nation's ministers and ministries have past ties to Maranatha Campus Ministries, a controversial Charismatic organization from the 1980s.

Some former Every Nation members have become acquainted with Maranatha's past, and contend Every Nation is little more than a revived and repackaged Maranatha. -- Blueboy96

You need to make it clearer what this means. Right now its not a statement that can proven or disproven.

This should make it more clearer:

Several former Every Nation members' research into the organization has led them

On one hand, Every Nation maintains that it is a completely separate organization from Maranatha. --BB

Well and you can't contest that. You haven't shown any evidence that their relationship is historical. You could even take your evidence (though I don't believe this is true) and argue they are competitors going after the same niches of churches. This is why "successor" is going to be easier to prove since you can define it. Same corporation you are a long way from proving (I'd bet its false). jbolden1517 ^Talk 01:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, it has recently acknowledged that some of its ministers (including Broocks, Bonasso and Murrell) have past ties to Maranatha. --BB

Was there a point they didn't acknowledge this? Do you have a cite? jbolden1517 ^Talk 01:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It has gone to several lengths to disavow Maranatha's more controversial practices and teachings. It specifically rejects any practices and teachings that are "controlling, coercive, or intrusive, or that violate biblical principles (or) the priesthood of the believer. It also contends that it does not practice any form of "controlling discipleship, authoritarian leadership, or theological mysticism"--practices that were harshly criticized in an ad hoc committee's report on Maranatha in 1983. Every Nation claims to have spent the last couple of years pruning out any Maranatha-style practices, attributing them to a few "bad apples" in the organization. While acknowledging Broocks, Bonasso and Murrell's Maranatha pasts, Every Nation notes that they fully supported Maranatha's dissolution in 1989, after which the majority of its churches changed their names and continued to function as local churches Some joined a variety of other denominations and networks, while others dissolved, merged with other churches or became independent. Today there are over 400 Every Nation churches worldwide, of which approximately 15 (or less than 4%) were formerly Maranatha churches. In these 15 churches staff and legal incorporation as well as physical plant was often retained. (list pruned) Every Nation also stresses that Bob Weiner, founder and driving force behind Maranatha, is in no way a part of the organization. Weiner was regarded as Maranatha's "apostle," and his word was considered the law. Moreover, they believe that the more extreme practices of Maranatha have been brought into a healthier balance in Every Nation.

This is getting a bit long. jbolden1517 ^Talk 01:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

These statements from Every Nation notwithstanding, several former members of Every Nation claim that Maranatha-style practices and teachings, albeit in slightly watered-down form, are actually quite widespread in Every Nation. They also claim that most of Every Nation's leaders, at least in North America, are either former Maranatha ministers or were directly trained by a former Maranatha leader.

You know you better evidence and clearly statements then this. Which doctrines, which churches which people....? jbolden1517 ^Talk 01:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

They also point to a large amount of corporate and historical links between Every Nation ministries and Maranatha. In the view of these former members, all of this evidence taken together is enough to claim that Every Nation and Maranatha are one and the same.

Much too strong. See above jbolden1517 ^Talk 01:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A full discussion of this evidence is beyond the scope of this article; see the Maranatha Campus Ministries article for more details. However, the Filipino branch was incorporated wholesale into Every Nation, and there are enough corporate links between Every Nation's ministries in the United States that they are, at the very least, directly descended from Maranatha.

How's that? More later ... Blueboy96 19:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm willing to rewrite it. I must say on the record that while I personally believe EN is Maranatha, I am willing to concede that the issue isn't settled, and therefore we should reflect that at the very least, it's a direct descendant.

Every Nation's FAQ page is where it largely acknowledges links to Maranatha ... I quote:

Q: I have read accusations on some online discussion forums that Every Nation is a continuation of Maranatha Campus Ministries, is this true?

This is false. While several Every Nation pastors, including Rice Broocks, Phil Bonasso and Steve Murrell, were active as campus ministers in Maranatha (a campus ministry founded by Bob Weiner) in the 1980’s, Every Nation unequivocally rejects the excessive teachings and practices that were present in Maranatha, specifically: controlling discipleship, authoritarian leadership, and theological mysticism.

Rice, Phil and Steve fully supported the dissolution of Maranatha in 1989, after which the majority of its churches changed their names and continued to function as local churches. Some joined Vineyard, Foursquare Gospel, or a variety of other denominations and networks. Others merged with local churches, dissolved or became independent. Today there are over 400 Every Nation churches worldwide, of which less than 15 (or less than 4%) were formerly Maranatha churches.

With this in mind, I propose this wording:

Some of Every Nation's ministers and ministries have past ties to Maranatha Campus Ministries, a controversial Charismatic organization from the 1980s. Some former Every Nation members' research into the organization has led them to discover corporate links between Maranatha and Every Nation. At its inception, Every Nation incorporated a large number of Filipino churches led by Murrell, as well as at least eight churches in the United States (one of which has since left the organization). It also incorporated Maranatha's former outreach to athletes, Champions for Christ.

Several former members claim to have seen widespread instances of Maranatha-style practices and teachings, albeit in slightly watered-down form, on several online forums and blogs. They also point to a large amount of corporate activity that appeared to involve Maranatha after it dissolved, specifically involving a Florida-incorporated body that still has valid certificates of authority in Texas and North Carolina. Based on these practices, and the corporate evidence, they contend that Every Nation is a revived Maranatha. Although the corporate links between Every Nation and Maranatha are largely beyond dispute, proving that Every Nation is Maranatha requires proof of spiritual continuity as well, which is somewhat more difficult.

For its part, Every Nation maintains that it is a completely separate organization from Maranatha. On the other hand, it has recently acknowledged that some of its ministers (including Broocks, Bonasso and Murrell) have past ties to Maranatha. It has gone to several lengths to disavow Maranatha's more extreme practices and teachings, many of which resulted in leaders exercising strict control over members' lives. It specifically rejects any practices and teachings that are "controlling, coercive, or intrusive, or that violate biblical principles (or) the priesthood of the believer." [11] It also contends that it does not condone any form of "controlling discipleship, authoritarian leadership, or theological mysticism"--practices that were harshly criticized in an ad hoc committee's report on Maranatha in 1983. Every Nation claims to have spent the last couple of years pruning out any Maranatha-style practices, attributing them to a few "bad apples" in the organization.

While acknowledging Broocks, Bonasso and Murrell's Maranatha pasts, Every Nation contends that they fully supported Maranatha's dissolution in 1989. They also claim that most of the Maranatha chruches changed their names and continued to function as local churches. Some joined a variety of other denominations and networks, while others dissolved, merged with other churches or became independent. Today there are over 400 Every Nation churches worldwide, of which approximately 15 (or less than 4%) were formerly Maranatha churches. In these 15 churches staff and legal incorporation as well as physical plant was often retained.

Every Nation also stresses that Bob Weiner, founder and driving force behind Maranatha, is in no way a part of the organization. Weiner was regarded as Maranatha's "apostle," and his word was considered the law.

EN's response to the Maranatha issue

EN has never denied that Broocks, Bonasso and Murrell were active in Maranatha in the 1980's but the argument cannot be made that EN is the same as Maranatha in practice just because several key leaders were part of Maranatha. Rice Broocks and Steve Murrell were college roommates at Mississippi State University and have been friends since 1978 (see Steve’s blog dated February 18, 2006) – they partnered together in ministry because they were (and are) lifelong friends, not because they were trying to resurrect MCM as MSI. We would also like to point out that, as currently stated in the last paragraph of the links to Maranatha section, Bob Weiner was the "founder and driving force behind Maranatha" and "is in no way a part of [Every Nation]." As stated in this article posted by the Christian Research Institute, Weiner eventually admitted to "struggling with anger, unkindness, contentiousness and a tendency to control." It further states that "four Maranatha elders suggested Weiner take a sabbatical during which time he would evaluate his 'personal character." [12] As Rice Broocks also attests in his book, Every Nation in Our Generation (pp. 48-49, used with permission):

Though there were negatives, we knew there was no such thing as a “perfect church.” The fact that the leaders truly had a heart for God kept us believing that these issues would eventually get worked out. Still, concerns surrounding the ministry began to surface. Many felt that some of its practices were heavy-handed and legalistic. There were also concerns that mysticism had crept in, placing too much emphasis on subjective experiences rather than the Word of God. The latter was a charge leveled against many in the charismatic community from the traditional Church at large. These issues weighed heavily on the hearts of most of the leaders. Attempts were made to bring about reforms and extricate these negatives from the mix.

When it became evident that these issues were endemic to Maranatha, Broocks and Murrell supported the 1989 decision that it was better to completely disband Maranatha. Broocks goes on to say that, “It has been said that you learn more in failure than you do in success. That may be true, but only if you get up and keep trying to succeed.” Steve Murrell, in his article entitled “My Spiritual Journey,” [13]states: “In my opinion, there were three main flaws that caused Maranatha to self-destruct in 1989: theological mysticism, micro-managing controlling discipleship practices, and an authoritarian leadership style. In my post-Maranatha ministry, I have diligently and prayerfully tried to keep these three deadly viruses out of my life and ministry.” It is clear that the two key leaders of Every Nation not only recognized the problems that were present in Maranatha, but have gone to great lengths to try to ensure that the same issues are not tolerated in Every Nation (more on this has already been explained in our response in the “Doctrine” and proposed rewrite to the “Links to Maranatha” sections of the Talk page.)

Thelma Bowlen ^Talk 08:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Change to Doctrine Section

We would like to request for the last two sentences regarding Shepherding to be removed from the Doctrine Section and replaced with the first 3 paragraphs currently under the Every Nation Core Values section. Per the Wikipedia entry on the Shepherding Movement, the Shepherding Movement was criticized for "controlling and abusive behaviour, with a great deal of emphasis placed upon the importance of obedience to one's own shepherd. In many cases, disobeying one's shepherd was tantamount to disobeying God." Every Nation unequivocally disagrees with this. We have already referenced our Discipleship Policy which disallows this kind of behaviour, and we attach below an excerpt from Every Nation in Our Generation by Rice Broocks (used with permission), pp.114-115, which explicitly rejects the teachings and practices of shepherding. Every Nation 09:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Preserving this Vital Truth

It seems that every powerful truth of Scripture has somehow been subject to the dual abuse of either neglect or extremism. Either the truth is ignored, and thus the powerful benefits intended to bless God’s people are lost, or they are taken to such an absurd extreme so as to cause them to be seen as dangerous. Such has been the case in the areas of faith, spiritual gifts, financial prosperity, among many other valid doctrines and principles. So it has been in the area of discipleship. A generation ago, this truth was emphasized and taken to the extreme that somehow gave men the total responsibility over others and placed the burden of transforming people out of the hands of God and into the hands of men. While discipleship necessarily involves men and women helping and training others, it doesn’t mean that the process is the total responsibility of men to perfect other men in Christ. In the end, it is “God who is at work in you both to will and do His good pleasure.” (Philippians 1:6) We are to preach, teach, pray, correct, train, and encourage others while at the same time not crossing the line of making someone obey God and do as we think they should.

This is a delicate balance to keep, for we are to be active in the process of disciple making. However, we must always remember the boundaries we have in ministering to anyone. These boundaries are primarily in the areas of decision-making and matters of conscience. After we share the Word with others, it is up to them to decide whether or not to obey. It is also important to distinguish between those things that are biblical commands and those that are areas of conscience. For instance, the Bible commands us to be holy and set apart as a Christian. If in discipling someone you find they are clearly involved in sinful behavior, i.e. adultery, fornication or homosexuality, you must speak authoritatively on the issue. They must stop this behavior immediately and seek God’s deliverance and forgiveness through genuine repentance.

On the other hand, there are areas of conscience on which we can certainly share our opinion and yet we must be clear that a person must seek the Lord, read the Bible and make up his or her own mind. An example would be the type of music someone listens to. I’ve seen people won’t listen to “Jingle Bells” because someone told them it wasn’t a “Christian song.” As much as I want to make others aware of what God’s Word commands them to do, I am constantly reinforcing the importance of each person grasping truth internally and not merely looking for an external rule to follow. We can recover this vital truth of discipleship if it is handled correctly and wisely. We must be secure when our counsel is not heeded and extremely patient. Above all, remember that if you are helping to disciple someone, you are not his or her pastor or spiritual authority. That position or office is held by those that have been proven and are set apart to oversee the Church. Every Nation 09:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

EveryNation exposed

BB -

The issue of the EveryNation exposed link has come up. Tik's claim is membership in Maranatha 78-83 (joined 78 and says he was a member for 5 years). This predates EN by a lot. He makes a comment about EN, "he contents of this Blog are copyrited 2006 by the author and represent the author's personal experiences and conclusions regarding MCM and EN" but in the blog itself so far there is nothing about Every Nation other than the title and a few allusions to funding methods that they share in common. Can you explain this link? I'm hard pressed to see how it is on topic as of yet. jbolden1517 ^Talk 11:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed New Section called 'Church Planting'

Per jbolden's suggestion, we are proposing to add the following under a new section to follow the History Section called 'Church Planting'.

Every Nation’s strategy for church planting is called the “2010 Initiative"[14]. The goal of the 2010 Initiative is for every local EN church to establish or “plant” at least one new church every three years. The ultimate outcome of this initiative would be that, by the year 2010, hundreds of new churches would have been established all over the world. The initiative also envisions that, eventually, all EN churches would be church-planting churches. Because Every Nation's ultimate vision is to eventually have a church in every nation of the world, a particular emphasis is placed on nations where it does not yet have any presence.

Examples of church-planting churches include the following: the Every Nation church in Manila, Philippines has planted churches in Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Vietnam. The EN church in London has planted a church in Dublin, Ireland; the church in Nashville, Tennessee has planted churches in New York and New Zealand; the EN churches in Sierra Leone have planted several churches in Liberia; and the church in Tarapoto, Peru has planted over a hundred churches in the Amazon Region of South America.

Every Nation's emphasis on church planting can also be seen in its strategy for world missions. In Every Nation, world missions is viewed as a launching pad for cross-cultural missionaries who go to the nations, make disciples, plant churches, and then raise up indigenous leaders who can then pastor their churches as well as plant new churches.

Every Nation has missionaries in some of the nations that have historically been the most resistant to the Gospel, including: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, India, Myanmar, Turkey, Vietnam, and the nations of the Middle East.

Thelma Bowlen ^Talk 08:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

intro to freedom of conscience

Feel free to edit the Freedom of Conscience intro. I'm trying to put the quote in context but there was no agreement (or even very much discussion) on how best to include this material. So jump in jbolden1517 ^Talk 09:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Edit to Structure Section

We would like to insert the following two paragraphs at the beginning of the Structure Section. We think this should replace the current paragraph about what is a convention of churches because this only applies to US churches and it looks like it is just a technical definition from the IRS. This is also in response to jbolden's request for clarification on the relationship between Every Nation and member churches.

Every Nation Churches provides spiritual leadership for approximately 400 member churches worldwide. This includes the following main responsibilities: 1) maintaining doctrinal orthodoxy; 2) mediating leadership conflicts; 3) assisting in the event of moral failure of a local church pastor or elder; 4) helping with leadership transition in the event of the death or incapacity of the senior pastor; and 5) encouraging member churches to uphold the vision, values and standards of Every Nation.

Every Nation member churches are fully responsible for the governance and direction of their respective local churches. Member churches responsibilities include: 1) subscribing to the vision, values and standards of Every Nation; 2) supporting official Every Nation conferences & events; 3) contributing 10% of their general revenue to Every Nation which in turn provides for the global oversight function and for the development of resources to support the churches; and 4) recognizing the role of Every Nation’s International Ministry Team in the spiritual leadership of their local churches.

Every Nation 09:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Very happy to be including this. Is there going to be a web reference in the future? jbolden1517 ^Talk 09:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

ENLI curriculum

There are a ton of references to these materials. I'd like to get some reference to where you get these, lists of books in them.... While these are obvious official references as is they are just short of private information. I'd like an ISBN, ASIN or weblink. jbolden1517 ^Talk 10:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Couple of things on Blueboy's end

1. If the Big Three supported the dissolution of Maranatha in '89, how does that square with Phil Bonasso filing himself as the California registered agent for Maranatha Christian Church, Inc. (one of Maranatha's original Kentucky corporations) in October 1990--after that corporation officially ceased to exist? If I understand the current Every Nation line, Broocks, Bonasso, Murrell and the others (including my former "pastor," Ron Lewis) wanted nothing to do with Maranatha. I might be able to understand why Lewis nor Bonasso bothered to reincorporate their churches, but continued on under old Maranatha charters. But for Bonasso to claim he supported the breakup and then file as registered agent for Maranatha later on ... sorry, but to this journalism major, that doesn't add up. 2. How many churches did MSI/EN start out with in '94? My working assumption has been that they had around 30-35 churches at first. Blueboy96 14:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking off moderator hat:

I think both you and Thelma are kind of young, so on #1 I'm going to give an answer that this really isn't that uncommon. Its pretty standard in American businesses that once a decision to terminate a business is made the old business continues having some operations. I've shut down business units from defunct corporation; we're talking employees, facilities, checking accounts which are very active for a companies that had legally ceased to exist for several years. And that wasn't working for some non profit church whose administrative services are run by the pastors' drunken brother; these were for banks and insurance companies.

So while I think you deserve an answer I wouldn't make too much of this. Accounts have trouble dealing with reality and people who deal with reality generally aren't accounts. The guys who deal with both are rare.

OK back to being a moderator. jbolden1517 ^Talk 01:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem here, I think, is that Every Nation's official line is that Broocks, Bonasso and Murrell didn't want to touch anything Maranatha with a 10-foot pole. But now we have Bonasso filing as the registered agent for a group he supposedly detested? Sorry, but that stinks enough that I can smell it in North Carolina. Reason I'm jumping on this is that we now know beyond all doubt that Ron Lewis was lying about leaving Maranatha in the 80s, and this is very similar behavior.

There may or may not be a conspiracy here, I don't know. But like I said, this couldn't contrast more with what appears to be the official EN line.Blueboy96 04:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why this page is a lie

In reading this whole thing I strongly recommend WP:V. Our goal is verifiability not truth. jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit funny to participate in a debate where the goal is not the truth :) Anonymou 04:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggestion you take a look at WP:V. That's policy from very early on. People get much more passionate about "the truth". Wikipedia aims to be a tertiary source, summarizing mainstream analysis published in reputable sources. That's not always possible but that really is the aim. jbolden1517 ^Talk 05:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Jbolden, I know you are doing your best to arbitrate between two extreme views, however the net of what has been created here is now a misrepresentation of the truth. The reason for this is simple. Every Nation has "home court advantage" by being able to enter into evidence anything that it says on its website.

Absolutely. Thelma is a self quoting source. There is no question Blue Boy is operating at a disadvantage in this debate. On the other hand Blue Boy gets to change his mind about stuff, Thelma really doesn't. But yes if I were interested in a fair I'd cripple her more. My primary goal is a great article that is based on well respected verifiable sources free from complex analysis and conforming to a neutral point of view not making sure the scoring works out.

On the other hand in my opinion Blue Boy has done pretty well. When he started this he had an article which had stuff like "Church X has facts A and B leading some people to conclude C is true". Now he has "Every Nation has stated on the record that C is true of Church X". That's huge progress

jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Those who have been hurt have only their own "unverifiable" stories to rely upon. The Big Tommy Story was actually pretty well documented by an insider, and it's hard for me to see why that had to be removed for example.

I broke the conversation on that so its easier to find /Archive_1#Tommy_Sirotnak. jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I made comments at the link you specified Anonymou 04:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond there.

Most of the policies that Thelma is referencing are BRAND NEW. For the first 10 years we all lived under all of the problems that Blue boy is alluding to and many many people were hurt in the process.

Can you prove this. Do you have copies of what the policies were in 2001? How would I verify these policies? jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the next best thing--link to bloggers' accounts of what happened in to them. Here's mine and here's another: http://nomoreshepherding.blogspot.com Blueboy96 16:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

BB I read yours when the case started. I started to read Ulyankee but I can't make out his story from it. It seems more like a collection of essays. jbolden1517 ^Talk 05:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a major scandal in LA which shockingly EN has had the distaste to delete, and it was this major scandal which caused Every Nation to finally deal with serious abuses within the ministry, especially in LA.

I got the "whole truth" on that one confidentially. Unless Thelma is bold faced lying to me there is nothing there. There is no way for me to prove it but I am just asking for real verification. jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Because they came under pressure they FINALLY publicly disclaimed the Maranatha practices.

Can you verify that order of events and that intent? Say for example a lieutenant of Rice indicating he was conducting marketing surveys of which Maranatha practices could be maintained without public pressure, or negotiations or....? jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually not claiming that Rice or anyone is intentionally trying to maintain Marantha practices secretly. But they certainly were very hush hush about their Maranatha past--many members today have no idea about it. And parts of the movement definitely practiced a heavy handed discipleship. I'm incredulous if Thelma actually disputes that, because that would in fact be an outright lie. There has been a lot of internal warfare over "style" of discipleship. Some parts holding to more mainstream, and some being more "Maranatha" style. Anonymou 04:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to take a look at EN's previous line, take a gander at archived versions of EN's old site, back when it was still MOrning Star International. Just go to the Internet Archive and do a search for http://www.morningstar2010.com Blueboy96 16:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you give me a more specific link? I didn't see anything really detailed or unexpected. Just looked like an older version of the EN website. jbolden1517 ^Talk 05:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You should at least note that the key items Thelma is referencing are all new. Go and see for yourself via internet archive.

You mean new on the website or new policy? If you mean new on the website, well hell yeah they are new. Wikipedia has given Every Nation the ability to confront their critics in a neutral form. They are discovering what sort of facts and evidence they should present. One of the things great journalism does is help public entities come to publicly release facts about themselves and undergo processes of self discovery. That's happening here. Its good for wikipedia, its good for Every Nation and its good for factnet.

By only presenting the "official" half of the truth, you are actually helping Every Nation deceive people.

How so? Present an example where the article is verifiable false. jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Phil Bonasso filed himself as the California registered agent for Maranatha's old Kentucky corporation just days after it legally ceased to exist. How does that line up with the official EN line that Broocks, Bonasso and Murrell supported the dissolution of Maranatha? I don't see how. Also, if Life Christian Church in St. Louis never "officially" joined Every Nation, then why was a senior EN leader (Paul Barker, dean of ENLI) hired on as an associate pastor? And why was a longtime operative from one of EN's most important churches hired on as another associate pastor? Blueboy96 16:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If Every Nation had really changed, they would admit to the many scandals which they had you delete. And believe me that is just the tip of the iceberg. Anonymou

The problem is I can't believe you. I can only believe sources. jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As a follow up to all this I'd like you to see for yourself how far this article has come in a little over a month before current jbolden1517 ^Talk 01:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Why a lie Part II

J. A couple of points. I find it very concerning that you "got the whole truth" confidentially from Thelma. That seems to undermine your neutrality as arbiter. I don't know what she told you but there most certianly is something there, which nearly destroyed the entire ministry and most definitely sidelined the #2 guy, Phil Bonasso. Perhaps she was not in the closed door meetings where it all went down and she herself has been fed spin. Therefore she thinks she is telling the truth, but is not.

Telling only one part of the truth is where the "lies" are. If John murders Jim, and John says "Jim died" he is telling the factual truth, but he is also lying. This is the kind of error this page is guilty of.

I understand what you are worried about. If I were in your shoes I would be worried. I am firmly opposed to private information. I don't have a good answer here. I had to make a call about whether wikipedia should distributed poorly verified information about a sex scandal with financial implications. As it read it was a clear cut violation of WP:BIO. On most of the poorly verified stuff I've taken my time, slowly raising the verifiability bar from where it was to where it should be. Here I raised it more quickly. Get me a good source it goes back in regardless of my personal feelings about whether its true or not (and I can give you examples from this and other cases where I've put stuff in articles that I personally think is BS). Its not my job as a mediator to believe or not jbolden1517 ^Talk 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the fundamental issue here is that NPOV is fundamentally different from verifiable. This article matches up to verifiability, but is definitely not neutral. It's an EN propaganda piece. I'm really am sorry to say that I think it has regressed in some fundamental ways, not progressed.

As I told you a month ago you are welcome to participate. That offer is still open. jbolden1517 ^Talk 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not see an offer, sorry. How did you try to contact me? Anonymou 04:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Although, I'm glad you got out all of the unrelated Maranatha stuff.

The Maranatha stuff was Blueboy's was the scandal stuff was yours?

Scandals and doctrine were mine. I wrote both with the intent of being honest and neutral. That is what EN can't handle. Why not admit there have been some problems in their own past (not just marantha) and move on. Anonymou 04:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Great that you've given EN a chance to confront their critics, but when to the critics get a chance to confront EN? Getting secret documents or recordings from one of Rice's lieutenants is not very realistic at all.

Sure, which means you probably don't get to have scandal stuff in there. Poorly verified news stories don't get into encyclopedia's they require investigative journalism which leads to investigations which leads to mainstream journalism, first. You are trying to skip too many steps.

What about the lawsuit against Bethel and company? That can be found online in public documentation. Can't it at least be mentioned that there is a lawsuit against them? Anonymou 04:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

But what you seem to be really upset about is policy. That's something lots of people would know about. If you are going to come in a productive way rather than play guessing games, why don't you write several paragraphs of what you believe to be true but lack the evidence to prove. That way I can address your points directly. jbolden1517 ^Talk 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Those policies are new to the website and new to the ministry. The burden of proof should be on them to show that they have been long standing.

Why? The article is written in the present tense (these are the policies). The history section combined with the Maranatha section shows pretty clearly shows the Maranatha -> MSI -> Every Nation evolution and the quotes demonstrate the evolution of doctrine. Both sides agree (though they haven't quite agreed on language yet) that Maranatha took some "extreme positions" and that using their experience from Maranatha MSI/EN guys have tried to keep the good.

Discipleship is the most worked out example. From what I understand so far (and grossly oversimplifying) Shepherding / Maranatha made discipleship a core virtue and almost fundamental to salvation whose importance was so great that the most important objectives were to introduce it and promote it. For EN its a useful, optional tool that needs careful monitoring because there is a large potential for abuse. That's pretty much in line with main stream evangelical thinking on the issue. Change the word from "disciple" to "mentor" and we could be talking about Lutherans here. jbolden1517 ^Talk 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There were no policies before the ministry meltdown, there was just the backroom practice. You asked about ENLI materials, perhaps I should get the old VLI notes, and we can have a substative discussion about the controlling doctrines in them,

I'd love to have the old VLI notes available. Obviously that should go on wikisources with a link from the EN article. jbolden1517 ^Talk 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

which again, have been whitewashed on this page. Unfortunately I'm not sure how we would prove that these are the real VLI materials since they were unpublished.

We are talking about a church not an intelligence agency. They are going to have a tough time functioning while maintaining a culture of institutional lying about their materials. Churches just aren't set up for that sort of thing. Of course they could still deny you permission to publish, but critiques and summaries are fair game (not for wikipedia but again we could link to it). jbolden1517 ^Talk 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Anonymou Also, can anyone help me with the date stamp?

yes you need to log in first. Then 4 ~'s will produce the signature / time stamp. jbolden1517 ^Talk 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Why a lie Part 3

OK, let's do it. Getting these things scanned in and put into wikisources is not going to be an easy endeavor for me, but if that is what it takes to prove that you are being fed spin, then I'm for it.

I find your comment about a culture of institutional lying a big funny actually. Because that is exactly what the issue is. Because of the authority issues, people are afraid to speak out, and so the leadership can say whatever they want and label those who disagree as bitter.

I really do applaud EN's efforts to be more mainstream like "Lutherans" but I find their need to hide the scandals and other problems past problems indicative that there has been no real heart change.

The LA thing was not just a sex scandal with financial implications. It started out as the discovery that a major leader of THE graduate school of campus ministry being discovered to have affrairs with multiple partners over many years. That's the tip of the iceberg. The real problem was that some of the very top leaders did not see it or looked the other way even when warned what was going on, which is why it lasted so long. Why didn't they see it? Because of the Authority problems which came from the shepherding doctrine which EN claims it never practiced or believed in. That's the real issue. Can't question your leaders. And obedience to leaders is more important the moral character. Of course no one ever "officially" believed this. That is just the way the system worked. Every bad system has ostensibly good goals, that's why people buy into it. Anonymou 04:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What you are saying is that EN has an authoritarian culture. Churches without an authoritarian culture don't have to fight large battles against going to far in control. Nobody does anything the pastor says, the pastor has to desperate fight for whatever authority he can muster up. When is the last time you heard a quaker sermon against controlling discipleship? If you are going to say there is a culture of absolute obedience then we are going to need more evidence. jbolden1517 ^Talk 05:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Now you're talking. That's exactly it. That is what they are now trying to fix (good) and pretend they never had (bad) The quote below is the only official source I can find so let's talk about it. Anonymou 05:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

OK here is a quote from page 8 of session six of Apostolic Foundations Revised 2/5/2000 "Determining and honoring headship means we allow God's agesnts to direct us, define us, and speak into our lives, not unlike the attitude of an obedient son in a natural family" There is the real Spiritual family belief in a nutshell. Anonymou 04:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

New wine magazine reference needs to be replaced. New Wine was THE publication of the Shepherding movement. For Murrell to say that he cut his teeth on it, is a clear indication of connection to the Shepherding movement. Check it out [15] Do so quickly before they can take it down. Anonymou 04:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thelma's already admitted they came from the Maranatha/Shepherding movement. There doesn't appear to be much disagreement about what was the doctrine during the 1980s. jbolden1517 ^Talk 05:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. If they agree that theit doctrine was influenced by the Shepherding movement, let's get a statement about it in there like the one that was removed. Anonymou 05:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I move that "Some joined Vineyard, Foursquare Gospel, or a variety of other denominations and networks. Others merged with local churches, dissolved or became independent." be stricken until EN can show proof of this. I've never heard of an MCM church becoming Vineyard although it may have happened. Anonymou 05:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

About the churches that came over from Maranatha.. this short lists clearly dramatically understates the Maranatha influence. KPIC and Metro Morningstar are two of what I would call "anchor" churches. Very large chuches which plant the others. To look at the real impact you'd also have to count the churches these planted. Also that's the other key thing. The people with the real power for the first 10 years were all ex-maranatha... Phil, Rice, Ron, Steve, Brett, Greg.. those were the power players and they were all ex-maranatha. Sure there was Jim Lafoon and a couple of others, but almost exclusively Maranatha. Anonymou 06:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Affiliated Organizations

Please remove Campus Missions International (CMI) from our Affiliated Organizations. We do not know who CMI is and we are 100% sure it is not part of Every Nation.

We would also like to make our second request to list our Affiliated Organizations by their current names, i.e. Every Nation Campus Ministries [formerly Victory Campus Ministries]; Every Nation Leadership Institute [formerly Victory Leadership Institute].

We would like to request that Morning Star International and Every Nation Churches and Ministries be removed from Affiliated Organizations. Every Nation Churches and Ministries is exactly the same as Every Nation, and Morning Star International is the former name of Every Nation, which is already explained in the main text as well as the first paragraph of the history re-write we requested last 22 June.

Every Nation 12:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)