This article is within the scope of WikiProject Evangelical Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Evangelical Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Evangelical ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject Evangelical ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject Evangelical ChristianityEvangelical Christianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
assess and improve articles to
good and
1.0 standards, or visit the
wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Well, I can't claim to be an experienced wikipedian, but I'm pretty sure that the edits that 76.28.178.11 made today were against the rules. I'll just see if I can undo them. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.5.200.111 (
talk)
21:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)reply
NPOV tag on Criticism section
Tdkocher added this tag on April 12, but has not made any subsequent changes or added any explanation to this page regarding this tag. While I think the section could use a little cleanup, I don't see how it makes the article non-NPOV. If no one disputes the removal of this tag within a reasonable amount of time, I'll remove it.
Jhortman (
talk)
16:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)reply
No one has objected to this change, so I'm removing the tag for now. If re-adding the tag at a later date, please post justification as to why in this space.
Jhortman (
talk)
02:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I added the tag specifically to address the fact that, while Hanegraaf's specific points are laid out, the Vineyard's response to his book, as well as responses by individuals independent of the Vineyard, are not included and laid out in a similar fashion. Perhaps a "response to criticism" section should be added, but at this point the criticism section does not give a fair representation of the disagreement between Hanegraaf and the Vineyard.
Tdkocher (
talk) 02:50 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you should substantiate your criticism by either adding what you think is missing, or clarifying it here on the talk page. Its great that you have an opinion on this - hopefully it will lead to a more accurate article. Please edit further.
Hyper3 (
talk)
11:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I do think that the size of this section is to large when the rest of the article is taken into consideration. For one thing, the title is somewhat misleading. It says "Criticism and the Toronto Blessing" which at first glance implies that there will be criticism of the Vineyard, but in reality it just talks about criticism of the Toronto Blessing which was under Wimber's umbrella but eventually the two groups parted ways. This leads to my second point: this section is not actually about current criticism of the Vineyard—its about an historical period in the life of the Vineyard movement. Ideally, I'd like to see this section converted into a subsection of the History section which deals with the rise of the Toronto Blessing within the Vineyard and the Vineyard's response to it.
Ltwin (
talk)
16:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I also appreciate your willingness to help make this article better... it could certainly use it. I think it would help the article more, however, if you could actually make some more substantive edits instead of just "drive-by tagging." For example, I agree with Ltwin that the criticism section could be more effective if subsumed into the History section. Would you be willing to take a first pass at doing that?
Jhortman (
talk)
15:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I suggest that this section be rewritten to be shorter and easier to understand in relation to Vineyard. More detail criticism of the
Toronto Blessing should belong in that article where readers can go if they want to know more. The inclusion of statement about John Wimbers responses should include general information about what he was responding to, not just how and why he responded. The criticism of Toronto Blessing is too off topic to take up such large amounts of this article, in my humble opinion. Was the vineyard movement only criticized for the Toronto Blessing and for no other reason? This section makes it look like this event was the only controversial thing that has happened within the movement. I will work on this article more if there is no one else who will.
Flofor15 (
talk)
20:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I added Lonnie Frisbee as a "see also" primarily because of his large impact on the Vineyard during its beginning stages. Please respond here first if you have an issue with this addition.
Tdkocher (
talk) 02:56 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Given his significant work in the early Vineyard Movement, he probably deserves more than just a "See Also" mention. If you're willing to edit the History section as we discussed above, it would be great if you could also add some content regarding Frisbee's role in the church. (There is already a small base of well-sourced content in the
Lonnie Frisbee wiki article.)
Jhortman (
talk)
15:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Shift to Egalitarianism after Wimbers death
I've had a degree of involvement with the vineyard church over the years. I'm wondering if it's worth adding a section mentioning the shift in theology from Complementarianism to Egalitarianism in the Vineyard church since Wimber's death.
As long as any statements regarding the Vineyard's theological positions can be referenced by
independent, reliable sources, then please do. (Remember that
no original research is permitted, as well.) I believe the CBMW link you posted is probably not a reliable reference because it is an organization dedicated to promoting the Egalitarianism viewpoint. Religion, like politics, is an unusual subject, though, so the CBMW link might be ok, after all... it would be good to have more discussion on that issue. It would definitely be better if you could also use a more neutral reference in addition to the CBMW link, though. -
Jhortman (
talk)
22:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on
Association of Vineyard Churches. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified 6 external links on
Association of Vineyard Churches. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
Probably because the Vineyard is not a Pentecostal denomination. It is considered by most Third Wave charismatic evangelical denomination. One of the categories listed is charismatic denominations.
Ltwin (
talk)
23:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Are there any sources to verify this? Other editors on the Dutch wikipedia are confinced that it is a Pentecostal denomination. They have placed three pentecostal categories on the wiki article about the Association of Vineyard Churches.
143.176.56.102 (
talk)
23:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)reply
I added a short statement with a citation of the source. I've not kept up on my Wikipedia skills though so if there is anything I should have done differently there please let me know.
Adamundefined (
talk)
22:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Content about "The Network"
I believe that content about
The Network should be deleted from this article. The events detailed have nothing to do with Vineyard Churches and are only related because The Network's founder was previously a Vineyard pastor.
WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!21:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a controversy within The Network because of the practices which developed within this sub-group of the Vineyard. These were in fact Vineyard churches, which later broke away. That is the nature of the controversy.
CarbondatedBeverage (
talk)
21:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
CarbonatedBeverage: Yes, The Network broke off from the Vineyard churches, but did the pattern of bad behavior start before or after the split, and was it responsible for the split? Or is the bad behavior not tied to the Vineyard in any way other than that their former brethren formed a bad church after they left?
WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!22:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
According to the stories published by
former members the bad behavior started before they broke away. Another part of the controversy is that the Vineyard hired him with his arrest background. Perhaps this could be expanded on and linked to a dedicated page.
CarbondatedBeverage (
talk)
22:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
CarbondatedBeverage and
Anti-Cancel-Culture, you both need to stop with the POV agenda pushing and edit warring. I've restored the article to the status quo from before all the back and forth and POV edit warring started today. Talk it out here, come to an agreement, reach a consensus, and stop disruptive editing through reverts. Both of you are on the way to an edit warring block OR possibly the article being locked for a time with the version neither of you agree with. It's your choice, each of you. A4M2
Alaska4Me2 (
talk)
01:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you, @Alaska4Me2. I did not mean to engage in edit warring. I came in earlier today to add a detail, and made an edit but didn’t cite it, which @
Anti-Cancel-Culture rightly called out as not being cited, rolling back my change. They made the right call. I came back and added the citation, but, in the end, didn’t feel the detail fit the content of this page, even properly cited. I reverted my edits on my own. I do not think anything needs added to this page. I value your feedback.
CarbondatedBeverage (
talk)
01:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for responding and doing so kindly. Battling in Wikipedia is a bad idea all around and creates a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Easy to engage in and then harder to stop doing once everyone's dander gets up. Maybe wait a week or so, see if the edits you wanted to make are really "better" and then reevaluate. I would also encourage reaching out to the other editor to see if you can collaborate with some compromising on each side. You probably both want for the article to be better, and that's a common place which makes for a good starting platform. A4M2
Alaska4Me2 (
talk)
02:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply