Talk:Bethel Church (Redding, California)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bethel Church (Redding, California). 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: 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) 01:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

early section

This new page was entered today. News references are included to show significance of the organization. Future edits will deal with the distinctive beliefs and practices of the church. Houseofisaac (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

External links...

...need to comply with WP:EL. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability/advert tags

While the subject of this article may be notable, this article fails to provide any notable facts supporting inclusion on Wikipedia. An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. If the organization itself did not receive notice, then the organization is not notable. This article should focus on the notability of the church, separate from the administration or pastors. What has the church done that is notable?

Please revise this article from one simply promoting the church and giving undue weight to the current administration and programs to one of the church itself, including establishment of the church, history, and notability, writing from a neutral point of view. Cindamuse (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. The notable part of this article is "Bethel Church is the church where Bill Johnson is pastor," in which case it does not warrant mention outside of the Bill Johnson article. Many churches of considerably larger size than this do not have their own articles. Blendenzo (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This is an old comment and it appears the article has developed since the time of this original comment to include plenty of notable content. DoctorG  (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of Church by Strange Fire Conference w/ video clip presented by Todd Friel, criticized by Pastor John MacArthur and others.

One of the main aspects of Bethel Church (Redding, California), is the popularity of the Contemporary Music Group, "Jesus Culture." Todd Friel presented two video clips where they criticized the Contemporary music of Jesus Culture, (wanting all Churches to go back to the Hymns/Reformed Baptists). There were two video clips that criticized Bethel Church (Redding, California), directly. One was showing a manifestation of gold dust in the air that has happened several times at the Church. Todd Friel, Pastor John MacArthur and the rest of he Pastors declared this was a demonic manifestation. The other clip was a group of people in the Church that had been "slain in the spirit" and were laughing. This they also declared was demonic manifestations. There should probably be another section, "Criticism," for this article. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReODdPFU_wEEaseltine (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a criticism section here. This answers the concerns of those above as well, as the criticism of Bethel Redding are probably the most notable part of the church. I'll take a stab at it soon. Ischus (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Cleaning things up

I worked on standardizing the references today, cleaning up the prose a bit, and removing a few templates. A lot of references are still needed in the history section and the prose needs to be expanded in a few of the smaller sections. It looks like it is in a good NPOV state now. DoctorG  (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Section on "use of funds"

The section seems to imply that the church bought their way into their new campus. The article makes it appear as though the residents were mounting a "not in my backyard" opposition and the council were pro-advancement. No mention is made of the neighbours who supported the project, listing one who changed her mind after reading it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Undid your unlabeled section blanking "criticism" section. Also, your summary says "take to TP" but there is a request right here on TP requesting "criticism" section.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC) edit to add WP:NOBLANKING also that looked like (at least) 3RR to me there. TeeVeeed (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
You do realize that the article has progressed since that earlier discussion. The new "criticism" section is WP:UNDUE as it simply repeats, with the same references, the content of the subsequent sub-sections. I have removed the sub-headings and the incorrectly added references. Ready to take to an RfC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
And since you stated that it something looked like 3RR to you, I'd like to ask, "where"? Certainly not on this article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
You rv that same section 3x. Look in article history edits for this month TeeVeeed (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Since this article looks a bit contentious at this point, I'll play nice and ask first. This response link https://anewscafe.com/2019/04/01/redding/former-redding-resident-responds-to-s-f-article-about-bethel-wake-up-redding/ would this source be considered RS? Pretty much googling news Beth Church Redding + cult brings up a lot of sources but I'm not sure which are considered RS for religion? Also, do they truly preach conversion for homosexuality? I'd like to include with RS if so, but again I need an idea of RS in the religion category.-thanksTeeVeeed (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I can see how you might think that, however as far as WP:3RR is concerned, [1] and [2] which are two separate edits, constitute one revert. After that, I made [3] and that is the second revert. I then made [4] in an attempt to harmonize and simplify the content on 2019-06-18T21:49:06‎, well outside the 24-hour period first revert at 2019-06-16T16:12:04‎ and also after you commented here. So even if you assume the first two count as two separate reverts, I did not go past 3RR here.
I'm not a representative or even an apologist for this church so I don't know if they are in favour of or opposed to conversion therapy (conversion for homosexuality).
As for RS, I have a bit of experience on WP:RSN, and would say that the link to the author of that piece, Roxanna Zalesny, goes to the website's guest speaker page. That makes it appear as though it's an opinion piece and not written with any editorial oversight. That appears to be supported in the intro where it states, "Zalesny’s opinion piece was also published on March 22 in the San Francisco Chronicle: 'Open Forum: Bethel is why I chose to leave Redding'." I suspect that if asked at RSN, it would fail. However, it depends on what you wanted to use it for. If you want it to support any of their programmes or beliefs, I don't think it would be acceptable. If you wanted to use it as a voice for opposition, it might be acceptable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes I am concerned to use RS to address criticisms. I get your point that we do not want to make it look like we are agreeing with WP voice about political complaints, but there are a few points about the church and town that are pretty well-known criticisms. I hope that you can see why I agree with other eds here that a criticism section is good for this article but I do agree with you and WP policy that we do not want to edit in a biased manner. TeeVeeed (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Criticism section

I recently expanded the criticism section a lot. I agree with earlier editors on this page that the church has been criticized a lot, and each in-depth article on them will dedicate a lot of space to their various critics, both other Christians and locals. So I think this article should definitely say that. However, reviewing the Wikipedia guidelines on Criticism, I want to bring up for discussion if the things currently under "Criticism" can be integrated into the rest of the article. I could see the controversies around the Supernatural school moved under that section. The gold dust, which I plan to write more about, could be placed under a new section "Beliefs and practices", together with what I wrote about the recent controversy around the call for prayers for resurrection of the child. Similarly, the criticism from local residents could be put under some "Impact on the community" section, where more positive aspects, such as the revitalisation of Redding to a certain extent, can also be brought up for balance. Right now I must have doubled the criticism section, and as said, the church has garnered a lot of criticism, but I worry that it "calls undue attention to negative viewpoints". On the other hand, maybe it's best to have it concentrated, and the guideline page even provides very similar pages where such a section is appropriate. Programmerarn (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I would support you working criticism into various sections. The criticism section is already the largest section of this article, and that starts to raise questions about NPOV. Yet you are right that there has been a lot of criticism. If the criticism was moved to various sections, it allows a fleshing out of other aspects that would balance it. For instance, belief and practice can also have mention of charismatic theology, views on worship etc. That would make the article meatier and more balanced without silencing the criticism. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I second Sirfurboy's sentiments. As the article is growing, it is probably best to incorporate at least most of the criticism content in other appropriate places in the article. FCGreg (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Disagree the criticism section was warranted. There is a lot about this religion that is critisised so instead of having the criticism dispersed all through the article and continually edited out and then back in again, the section was created to contain it. There is no disputing that his religion has very heavy criticism and a section is deserved for this article otherwise the entire article could be criticism.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree that there is no disputing that they have been heavily criticised, as I think even they themselves admit, but I don't agree that the entire article would be criticism otherwise. Some of what is currently under criticism is not even necessarily criticism. They themselves have posted the gold dust cloud to their official YouTube account and pride themselves on, and attract followers for, some of practices that are criticised by others.
Furthermore, Their music is, after all, arguably at or near the top of the Christian worship music world. They have amassed a huge following, which is why the recent resurrection incident got so much press coverage, since the artist had 100,000s of followers on social media and Bethel Music has 1,5 million followers on Instagram. So there is clearly more to them than criticism.Programmerarn (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes that was my point that in order to not have the criticism in every section that it is better to put it in one section. Also I agree that the recent resurrection appeal could go in two sections there, so that is tricky. It is a main part of their ministry. It would probably make more sense for article readers to explain something about that in the ministry section but most sources found on that topi are highly critical. IDK if this is a reliable source but they explain how this church before 2018 went to the morgue to try to resurrect the dead and went to accident scenes. https://au.thegospelcoalition.org/article/price-awakening-examining-theology-practice-bethel-movement/ TeeVeeed (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I started moving parts of what I wrote to other sections. I will hold on a bit on the other parts. Currently I lean towards agreement with the two other commenters. I definitely think there is room though to bring up something along the lines of "they have gained a large popularity in charismatic and evangelical circles for their teachings and music, but have also been criticised ..." in the lead once the article has become a bit meatier and goes into more detail on both of those topics. I think that would be balanced and fair.Programmerarn (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I have now moved everything to other sections, and even added more criticism where applicable. I think it all flows very nicely. But I'm more than happy to continue discussing it.Programmerarn (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Alleged photos of Beni Johnson practising grave soaking

Some critics allege that senior leader Beni Johnson has posted photos of herself on Twitter and Instagram (that now appear to be removed) practising what appears to be grave soaking. Such critics include The Gospel Coalition https://au.thegospelcoalition.org/article/price-awakening-examining-theology-practice-bethel-movement/ which is a fairly big Christian organisation (co-founded by Timothy Keller, and baptist blog Pulpit and Pen https://pulpitandpen.org/2018/04/19/bethel-pastor-contradicts-bill-johnsons-narrative-infamous-grave-sucking/ which has been previously been used as a source on Wikipedia in the article The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven. All they provide is screenshots though. Help me judge if this is credible enough for inclusion (with a clear statement of who alleges what). I lean towards not, but The Gospel Coalition is on the other hand reasonably mainstream within Christian circles and this is an often brought up criticism.Programmerarn (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I just read that Christianity Today brings it up in their big cover story on Bethel from 2016: "More recently, Beni Johnson (Bill’s wife) and other Bethel leaders have been said to practice “grave sucking” or “grave soaking,” purportedly a means of absorbing the spiritual anointing of deceased Christians by lying atop their graves." https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/may/cover-story-inside-popular-controversial-bethel-church.html This changed my mind to lean towards mentioning this.Programmerarn (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

no reason for scare quotes

It seems that a cessationist, or possibly a materialist is putting scare quotes around the terms miracle(s) and phenomena in the beliefs and practices section. This is entirely unnecessary. It's already been established that the church is charismatic and believes in such and so they are making the claims that they actually exist. To claim that they "are obviously staged for the purpose of making money" is entirely unsourced and has no basis in fact. The staff do not get paid by the miracle, so it's not clear why this claim would even be made. This is not a congregation that preaches a prosperity gospel so there's no indication that larger gifts will get bigger miracles.

On a separate note, the addition violated MOS:LQ (the period should not have been included) and MOS:PUNCT (the quotes should always be straight), but that's easy to fix if a valid reason can be given for the scare quotes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Your evaluations of the the persons beliefs (which are completely irrelevant) aside, I don't think the air quotes were a scare tactic. To me, it seems more like a "supposed miracles" thing. While you assort here that charismatic churches claiming miracles exist is established, that isn't stated in the article that they do and it's doubtful a general audience would know it. At least not without having to look into it. Otherwise, why have the internal link to Charismatic movement if it's just common knowledge who they are and they do? Also, while things like "Leaders claim to have witnessed angels" (something more mainstream then say trying to raise the dead) is specifically phrased as a claim, any use of the word "miracle" isn't. Therefore, giving "miracles" more legitimacy then those other things (seeing angels, gold dust, paraphrasing, etc). When really, it's all an unverifiable claim isn't it? So shouldn't the article say something like "Bethel is also known for their teachings on purported miracles," or "The school claims to train its students in the supernatural and miracles, such as faith healing" Etc Etc. Instead of stating it like those are actual, proven, real world things that can be done and taught? At the same time the article treats seeing an angel skeptically and as something fantastical that might have been made up. That's just my two cents about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
So you reference the editor's beliefs, but the editor offered no reason so I offered one.
No need to add any of this. It is their claims. The emphasis you're suggesting is WP:UNDUE. If we wanted to give opposing views an WP:UNDUE level of emphasis on a topic, we . For instance we have an article on the moon landing. Nowhere in the flow of text do we have any discussion on the hoax theories. A summary is in a separate section and the vast majority is in a separate article. We do not discuss where there is or is not a god as Christians believe here, or in any discussion of any denomination: we have that in a separate article. Whether you or any other writer believes the existence of angels, miracles or god, we do not have the article digress into those discussions; we leave that for other articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think Walter Görlitz was saying the use of these quotes was a scare tactic. They are just called Scare quotes when used in that way, and I think he is correct to object to them per the MOS guidelines he has quoted and because it is not appropriate for an article to use wiki-voice to take sides on an issue, even if that issue is the legitimacy or otherwise of miracles, which (by definition) are extraordinary. The reader can make that determination themselves. Likewise we do not need to add in "purported" to qualify miracles although it could be appropriate for some very specific claims (a purported glory cloud, for instance, but it needs to be done carefully to avoid POV). We can use "claims of healing" etc, because that is factual. A healing or miracle is claimed, and the article is not taking a side on the veracity (unless there is some WP:RS that studies the claim and that we can quote). We shouldn't say "The school claims to train its students..." because that is clunky. It looks like it is contentious as to whether they do any training. I am not sure that there needs to be a financial reason to fake something for it to be fake (whether deliberate or not), but I think discussion of that is outside the scope of this talk page. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree here that the article is sufficiently neutral as of now. If anyone wants to expand the section with a short introduction to Charismatic beliefs in general, or the recent resurrection attempt, which was arguably their most notable moment to date, I welcome it.Programmerarn (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Christianity Today now behind paywall

I just noticed that the Christianity Today article, which much of the article relies on, is now behind a paywall. I have no idea how this works, but even old archived versions on Wayback Machine are now paywalled. It certainly wasn't when I wrote much of what I contributed to the article. I just wanted to bring this to light, especially with the recent edits and discussions today about unsourced claims. Now a lot of other (potentially critical) claims can appear to be unsourced, which should be allowed, but not ideal WP:PAYWALL.Programmerarn (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know that 14 cites to the 2016 article and 1 to the 2019 article constitutes "much" when there are 15 to a buzzfeed article alone and 46 additional references, albeit some of those are primary.
With that wikilawyering aside, thanks for raising that point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent addition to Beliefs and practices, and criticism in general

Recently, some lines were added to the Beliefs and practices section. Aside from being unsourced and unattributed, I think it's a random string of criticism that brings up topics not covered elsewhere in the article. There are far more prominent and prolific critics of Bethel that are not mentioned in the article, that I think have more notability, such as John MacArthur who used to have a section, but doesn't anymore. Whether the removal of MacArthur was good or not is up for debate, but I think in terms of due weight given to criticism, to achieve a balanced article, other aspects take precedence.

I do not wish to be discouraging to new contributors and if the section should be kept it should of course be allowed a period to fix the citation needed parts. But at the same time, similar additions have been deleted from the article many times in the past. Programmerarn (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

To further not discourage new contributors, I think the topic of apostleship and supposed ties to the New Apostolic Reformation, that was added in this edit, is valid and deserves expanding. But just as with many other things, e.g. the resurrection attempt, or shaking and screaming as a signs of the Holy Spirit, it does not necessarily need to be brought up under criticism or something negative if it's not seen that way by Bethel. Programmerarn (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the dedicated critism section. That's how the article was for years and it has a few advantages. For one, it's easier to read and write compared to the integrated approach. Plus, it allows people who want to either not read or read that stuff to do so. Its really a seperate topic from the main subject that people might or might not to read about. They should have option to or not IMO. Also, WP:Criticism says its an option for article about religions. The The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article has one and so do articles about other "fringe" belief systems (I'm not sure what to call it) that are being criticised. I see no reason Bethel ahould be treated differently. The title of the section could at least be rewritten to "reception" or similar to be more neutral.
As far as just integrating the criticism into the article how Bethel would see it (as just a thing), that would be semi-white washing IMO because thrashing on the ground isn't notable normally on its own as a thing, it is notable here specifically because they are criticised for it. Plus, deciding what's seen as negetive or not by "the church" and writing the article that way would be editoralizing. As from in my understanding people in the church have mixed reactions to what goes on there and what happens that's "positive" or "negative" is a personal evaluation. Again, the reason the criticism is covered in the article is becuase the critiscism of things that are being criticised is notable. Not because the things that are being criticised are "good", "bad", or happen.
In other words, the article is notes that they are being criticised for gold dust falling out of the sky during sermons, not that the existence of gold dust itself. Which is also why those things warrant a seperate section IMO. Hopefully that makes sense (mobile edits probably don't help for clarity). Again, that's how its done in other religious articles etc and it doesnt neccessarly destroy the articles neutrality to have one. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree, I think that rolling on the ground uncontrollably or a purported gold dust cloud are notable not because of the criticism, but because they are defining features of a church that have made a huge following and whose songs are sung all over evangelical Christendom. And they are rather rare features at that even for a Charismatic church. I don't think it's editorializing, rather the opposite, making a judgement, would be. Maybe my point didn't come across, because I do not want to integrate how Bethel would see it. If anything, I meant that these things are in the eyes of the beholder and that's exactly why they should just be described as what they are. That's also why I lean towards not having a criticism section (after all I was instrumental in removing it) even though I fully agree that we're talking about a heavily criticized church here. But even then, as WP:Criticism notes, care really needs to be taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Programmerarn (talk • contribs) 22:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I have never liked "criticism" sections in Wikipedia articles. For starters, they become a hotbed of drive-by editing that draws disgruntled people. Secondly, as it seems Programmerarn is mentioning, articles should be including notable criticism inline anyhow—within the relevant topic it discusses. Killiondude (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
While this discussion is good, and one I gladly continue, I feel that it's a somewhat of a sidetrack from my original question. The criticism currently added to Beliefs and practices is, in my mind, at least partly, not among the most notable criticism. As said, it has good parts, like apostleship. But, for instance, the sentence with the quote from the book does not feel like the format of Wikipedia with the way it's just there without any further explanation and just implies that the quote is bad... which, by all means is in itself a very valid viewpoint, just not Wikipedia-like in my mind.
This talk page brings up John MacArthur and the Strange Fire Conference, which used to be a part of the Wikipedia article, but seemed to gradually be removed later on. If anything, I think that the criticism from him and his associates, and other notable critics, should be added back if we decide to keep the other criticism in question here.Programmerarn (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
MacArthur is a well-known cessationist. He's going to lash out at anyone that doesn't hold the same view as he does on the topic, and the fact that Bethel is one of the best recognized congregations may be why he singled them out, but he could just as easily picked on another charismatic group. I have no problems keeping it in or removing it, provided that is what consensus supports. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Resurrection attempt in lede

@Walter Görlitz: I disagree about it not being lede material. It is one of the most notable events in church history, I would say it is the most notable, and they have never gained media attention like that since or before then. I also had a look at the WP:MOSLEAD and I definitely think it fits there. Care to provide your opinion on why it doesn't? Programmerarn (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You do understand that the lede "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents" (emphasis mine). In summarizing the article we would condense the most salient sections of the article into a synopsis, but there wasn't any mention of it in the article yet. based on the number of sources or lines of prose, it's not the most notable element in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
It did exist in the article already, check under History. I'd be happy to add more sources or otherwise make it more prominent, it was covered in several national and international newspapers. Check the pageviews of this article, it got far more views around the incident than it ever has. It's the most notable thing together with the popularity of Bethel Music.
Just a quick selection from google:
Programmerarn (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Nice to see that you want to expand the section on the event. This is all a single event though (see WP:NOTNEWS). After you've expanded the section, without over referencing, it might make sense to include the content in the lede. By the way, Dailymail is not a reliable source and has been deprecated per WP:RSN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
It is covered in the article with the same level of detail as both Bethel Music and Jesus Culture, so by that standard, neither of them should be mentioned in the lead either. The church might be known within Christianity for these ministries, but outside, this is now what it is most known for, as evidenced by how news media will bring it up in recent articles when summarizing what Bethel is (example, second paragraph in the introduction about them https://www.sacbee.com/entertainment/living/religion/article241044316.html). After reading NOTNEWS, I do not come to the same conclusion as you -- that it discourages this event's inclusion in the lead. To further quote from MOSLEAD, it should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Also thanks for the heads up about Dailymail, my intention in enumerating it was not to use it as a source. Programmerarn (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Grave soaking is covered in detail, the single story about Olive Heiligenthal has one sentence. Those the two topics you mentioned have entire articles about them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, one paragraph, not sentence. I do not feel that the length of the section is the most important part here. I feel that I have made it very clear with several arguments how this is the most notable event in church history that got the church attention it has never gotten otherwise, by several metrics. Grave soaking was also mostly associated with students, as the leadership distanced themselves from it, whereas the resurrection attempt was sanctioned and encouraged from the highest levels. But by all means, I'd be happy to include grave soaking in the lead too. Programmerarn (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I see one sentence as of now: "The church gained national press coverage in December 2019 for their attempt to resurrect the deceased two-year-old daughter of a church leader." It's not the most notable event though, it's Wikipedia:Recentism at best. It's definitely the most out of the ordinary even for charismatic Christians, but it's not the most notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Much of this argument seems to come from the misunderstanding that it's not included in the article except for the short summary that you moved from the lead to below Grave soaking. Please refer to History like I said in the beginning of our discussion: "In December 2019, the two-year-old daughter of a Bethel Music recording artist and worship leader in the church died. As a response to this, the church publicly called for congregants and global followers to pray for the girl to be resurrected. They hosted a prayer service and spread social media hashtags for this purpose, which aroused controversy and criticism.[16][17] These efforts concluded six days after the passing, when the church put out a press release that the family would transition towards a memorial service.[18][19] During the prayer efforts, a GoFundMe page was set up that raised over $74,500 as of January 2020.[20]" Like your references to NOTNEWS, I do not share your view that it is Recentism, and I will kindly have to ask you to explain how it is such. This was a fundamental event, as evidenced by the unprecedented news coverage, that is brought up after as a fundamental point to understand the theology and practices of Bethel Church.Programmerarn (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Again, when quoting, we don't use italics. Thanks for pointing out that it was already covered. Feel free to re-write the section, but it is the definition of RECENTISM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean by that, inclusion in lead or not? Also, please, I do not think it is good style to correct me for my style in a talk page. I have never once put a quote within italics in an article. I read RECENTISM, and I certainly think it is not, so I ask you to explain why it is. All I'm seeing so far is another editor's opinion, and you haven't met most of my points.Programmerarn (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The story about the child's attempted resurrection makes perfect sense in the grave soaking section, and I thought it was there. I moved an edited version of your summary, with its bare reference, from the lede into that section. You have shown that it was already there. The section clearly needs to be edited or now.
The grave soaking topic should be summarized for the lede, but the story you want to focus on is just a part of that larger theme. It is a prominent example of their belief, but is not a substitute for it. That shows it is an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events.; the very definition of recentism. It would create an imbalance based on a news spike. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
It is not just a news spike, though it is a news spike like the church has never seen. It is something completely out of the ordinary in all of charismatic Christianity in the West. Something like this simply never happens so publicly as it happened at Bethel, a church that produces some of the most popular music among all of the wider evangelical community. It will be as notable in ten years as it is now. Programmerarn (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Would you like me to recount the dates of the stories you supplied. They're all within ten days of the event. It's not completely out of the ordinary in the West. There are charismatic churches that have this belief, they're just not as prominent. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
"they're just not as prominent" exactly and that is my point, with Bethel's reach, it's unprecedented. I don't see how ten days have anything to do with it. It's quite obvious that when the attempt failed, the family wished to withdraw from the public and get privacy. I will expand the resurrection section some time in the future because I think there's some parts that can be clarified, such as how it was sanctioned from the highest level, but I don't think we'll get any further here. Programmerarn (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
It's quite insensitive (at best, plainly ignorant at worst) to assume that the family's motivation for withdrawing was motivated by anything but grief, not to shrink from the publicity. I don't know that it was "sanctioned from the highest level" so much as not discouraged. It was clearly a grassroots movement. Yes, it stemmed from the charismaticism that is taught at the church, but that does not mean that it was promoted by the leadership. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
If I appeared insensitive that was not at all my intention, rather what I meant was that they sought to withdraw from the public to allow for the grieving process, which they are of course entitled to. Those two are not at odds. And the reason I even speculated in this was because you seemed to imply that it wasn't notable because it only lasted for ten days, to which my argument was that I think it is very obvious (and understandable) why it ended abruptly once the parents decided to go on with the grieving process. And none of that makes it less notable.
It was sanctioned, though it might not have started from the senior leadership. See these quotes: "The church itself has assisted in spreading the word. On Tuesday evening, Bethel hosted a prayer service “declaring resurrection and life” for the little girl.", and

On Wednesday, Bill Johnson posted a somber five-minute video statement addressing critics who have questioned the church. Johnson says there is biblical precedent for such miracles, citing biblical accounts of Jesus raising people from the dead. But he acknowledged that the outcome is unknown. “There’s no manual that tells us ‘fast this many days, pray this many hours,’ ” he said. “But there’s a biblical precedent that tells us to keep praying.”

https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/12/olive-alayne-heiligenthal-resurrection-bethel-church.amp Programmerarn (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The article you linked makes it clear, as a whole, that Bethel teaches that miracles like this do still occur. Howeverm the quote from Johnson reads like pastoral support for the couple, not "sanctioning" of their activities. We cannot apply a WP:POV statement like "sanction" when there's no evidence of that from the leadership. Granted, if the couple had been attending a congregation that preaches cessationism, they would likely have been discouraged from this sort of activity, and there would have been no such pastoral support, and may even have resulted in in removal from fellowship. The inverse cannot be construed as "sanctioning". At best we can say that the couple's action was not discouraged and was in-line with Bethel's teaching. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I have now expanded the section with content that we discussed. Since you said "After you've expanded the section [...] it might make sense to include the content in the lede", I now ask you if you think this criteria has been met. Programmerarn (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bethel_Church_(Redding,_California)/Archive_1&oldid=1079509348"