Talk:Churches That Abuse

Slight error

One of the section captions reads: "Emphasis on experience over". I assume there must be a following word or phrase, but have no idea what the author intended.72.193.217.111 18:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Should have been "Emphasis on experience" Xanthius 18:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Churches That Abuse Cover.PNG

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

Section was added by BKarcher, a University Bible Fellowship leader, which may constitute a conflict of interest. Also, the critiques by Tucker are in reference to the follow-up "Recovering from Churches that Abuse", not "Churches that Abuse". Easternroot (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

True, I do have a declared COI for UBF. However that COI does not prevent me from editing entirely, per WP:CONFLICT. If readers of UBF deserve to know about its controversies, then readers of this article deserve to know about the controversy surrounding the book. Also, the quotes in reference are related to "Chuches that Abuse", per Tucker's statement: "...I was asked by his editor at Zondervan to write an endorsement for his book, Churches That Abuse..." Bkarcher (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, you have no qualms about editing (even major edits such as adding a Controversies section to an article about a book which is largely uncontroversial) in spite of a declared COI, but one would hope that you'd adhere to guidelines and stick to the Talk pages with your COI-influenced views. Easternroot (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This book and its followup are very controversial. This has been well documented here. Hopefully now you know how it feels for a COI-burdened editor to add controversy to something you care deeply about. And I hope the readers here realize that you also are a COI-burdened editor who (until recently) had no qualms about major edits to the UBF page. Bkarcher (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly worth my time to bandy words with you. "The book" is in no way connected to JPUSA, unlike its followup, as any rational third party will realize. And I don't "care deeply" about it. After becoming informed of the COI issue, and then declaring COI in relation to UBF, I've made zero edits, compared to your dozens. Puhleeze. Easternroot (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with BKarcher's presumption that a separate section titled "controversies" be inserted in the article. In all fairness, this section is only an opinion on countering the mentioning of a group in Enroth's study by trying to undercut Enroth himself. Unfortunately, this method of discredit is not at all something new under the sun in christianity today. There are links in the page where positive reviews of the book are given by degreed specialists. The content of the "controversies" section is right in line with what the external links section provides - reviews of the book (or even the methods of Dr. Enroth). I propose that the source (not sourceS btw) that is being used to create the "controversies" section be moved to External Links as an external link. Pc800 (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Pc800, you are correct in that I was attempting to counter the mention of UBF in the book. I think it is grossly unfair to lump UBF in with the other groups. UBF does have problems to deal with. However, readers deserve to know that not everyone agreed with Enroth (i.e. Tucker and others). Perhaps a separate section is not warranted. But I insist the controversy links be included somehow, as they are related to this book. Also, I have seen some of Enroth's interviews and some of his work has been a valuable contribution to the Christian community. I am thankful for how God has used Enroth to help the people he did. I just think more research should have been done in the case of UBF. Bkarcher (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Cornerstone is not a reliable source, however. It is a quarterly magazine published by Jesus People USA, a group criticized in the Churches That Abuse book. See [[1]]. Xanthius (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I don't recall JPUSA being mentioned in Churches That Abuse. I think it was mentioned in the follow up book. Bkarcher (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct, JPUSA was not mentioned until the sequel Recovering From Churches That Abuse. However, this Cornerstone Magazine article, which is itself not a reliable source, was written as a response to the second book's criticism of JPUSA. Xanthius (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the article as a whole is in response to the sequel. However, Tucker's comments, at least the second paragraph quoted here, are specifically in reference to the first book, when she was asked "to write an endorsement for his book, Churches That Abuse." Bkarcher (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

JPUSA?

Just wondering, why is Jesus People USA mentioned in the list of groups in this book? I find no mention of JPUSA, and only one sentence that might possibly refer to JPUSA on page 10. Bkarcher (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

The charge of spiritual elitism and authoritarianism seems to imply a veiled criticism of the Roman Catholic Church, since this is a common Protestant criticism of the Church. It should be verified as to whether this is actually a criticism of the Catholic hierarchy. ADM (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint that this could apply as a veiled criticism of the Roman Catholic Church. However, I am not sure why you mention this, as the page is about the book, and the book doesn't mention Roman Catholicism to my knowledge (I have read it, albeit a long time ago).

I do not know how much experience you have in what would be referred to by catholics as "protestant" groups(?), but the contents of the book on this subject section really are offshoots of what became abusive in catholicism that have now taken on a "protestant" flavor. By this I mean that the types of abuses of spiritual authority via catholicism over centuries of misinterpretation and misapplication of the scriptures as well as replacement of the scriptures by canon law, are now being manifest in protestant evangelical groups today - only in "their" flavor.

The claim among protestant evangelicals is that papal hierarchy is not supreme authority according to the Bible. Protestant claims are that Christ is the Head of the church (which is true) and the Bible is authority as final word - and their interpretation of authority from it alone. In other words, churches that abuse on this subject of authoritarianism are churches that claim you are denying the authority of the Bible (with linkage to rebellion against Christ) if you reject their abusing you. This is much more serious and dangerous than the protestant claims that it is OK to reject abuse by the Roman Catholic hierarchy (for reasons we know that protestants criticize the Roman Catholic system).

The problem is not Christ, the Bible, nor genuine spiritual authority. The problem is where people depart from these and "use" God to impose an authoritarian structure and behaviour because this suits the personal taste of their soul - worse, they misrepresent and mis-present the authority of God to people. We should be careful not to allow ourselves to be attracted to these types of "churches". User:Pc800

Controversies - Update

The main point of this section has been integrated by adding one sentence in the article. I removed the section. Bkarcher (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Please go back and integrate the citation to the content, as well. Thanks and Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 08:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I added the cite ref back, however that link does not exist any longer, as the magazine changed its online format. Will look for other ref info. Bkarcher (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Churches That Abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070222204041/http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_churchesthatabuse2.htm to http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_churchesthatabuse2.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)