Talk:Potter's House Christian Fellowship/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Untitled

The following is an archive of a rather heated discussion about this article that ended up banning one user.

Note! Can participants on this page please sign their comments using ~~~~, as is conventional. Otherwise for third parties coming to read this page it becomes very difficult to distinguish between the participants in the discussion. Thanks. — Matt Crypto 08:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

12.111.25.4 and 220.233.86.233

Okay, let's try to work together on this.

I don't think either of you have had much experience in writing Encyclopedic articles. We have to remember that articles like this have to be factual and neutral. The article must not be biased for something or against something.

This, however, does not mean that certain things can be omitted. All important information should be included, whether that information is to your liking or not.

External links removed. Why?

Take, for instance, the removal of a number of external links that are critical of Potter's House. Why did you remove these? Is it because you think they are unimportant to the article, or is it because you think that readers of the article should not have access to them? Sorry guys, but the removal of external links to critical websites is an indication of deep bias on your part.

I'm all for having the critical websites returned to the article. I am also happy for official PH websites to also be in the article, including links to websites that attempt to answer any criticisms of the movement.

The use of biased language

Look at the following two paragraphs:

When last researched almost all who dislike or protest The Potters House Christian Fellowship, have trouble with submission, and seem quite bitter, and don’t to have True Biblical principles in their lives, and although only a very small minority are quite vocal on the internet.

The majority of experience is that of thankfulness and that the congregation are glad to really know the truth and nearly all tell of a Testimony of how Jesus Christ has touched them and changed them into better people. It seems about 25% of the congregation are ex Drug Users or Alcoholics and all seem to of been set free indeed, some have been serving GOD for over 20 Years.

Both of these paragraphs are blatantly pro-PH. The first paragraph states that those who dislike the movement are wrong, while the second paragraph states that those in the movement are all happy and love Christ. This sort of thing is blantantly biased towards PH.

I'm not suggesting that the only alternative is to have an article that is anti-PH. If this article had been edited by anti-PH people who were saying that PH was the devil's church and Wayman Mitchell is an antichrist, then I would have done the same thing - removed their contributions and asked them to be more neutral.

"When last researched" - by who? Give an external link. You also assert that the majority are happy. How do you know this? Have you interviewed every person in every church? Are you relying upon the church itself to tell you this? Well of course the church is not going to report anything negative about itself to you.

The removal of negative comments

Why was the following removed?

The Potter's House Christian Fellowship, otherwise commonly known as The Door (CFM) has continued to grow and expand their presence into many parts of the world. As more has become known of CFM, it has increasingly been labeled as a "cult group" by many ex-members, including pastors long involved with the movement. One can find many internet resources concerning the practices and policies of CFM, most noteably the "slam the door" yahoo message group (linked below), created to help recovering survivors of CFM.

The removal of this information is, again, a biased move. By all means edit it, and by all means add to it the church's answers to this. But do not remove it.

Bad writing

The church members are enthusiastic, full of energy in your face Christians who like to continually outreach and worship GOD wholly.

Problem: Use of slang terms are inappropriate.

The majority of experience is that of thankfulness and that the congregation are glad to really know the truth and nearly all tell of a Testimony of how Jesus Christ has touched them and changed them into better people. It seems about 25% of the congregation are ex Drug Users or Alcoholics and all seem to of been set free indeed, some have been serving GOD for over 20 Years.

Problem: Uppercase letters for God; the use of informal language (eg "touched", "set free").

What needs to happen

At some point in the near future I will rewrite the entire article. I expect you two to help me do it. We discuss together what we want to write and we do so in a frank, but polite manner. We are to be honest with one another, but we have to also be aware of the other person's point of view. For more info, see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes

If you don't remove the bias and POV that you have inserted, then we may end up in an "edit war".

Let me tell you what happens in an "edit war" - just in case you two have not been in one already. It goes like this. You revert the article to what you want it to be, then I revert it to what I want it to be, then you revert, then I revert. An edit war will always end in a stalemate unless one side backs down.

With the disagreement escalating, one or both parties then approach other Wikipedia users for mediation purposes. The process can be viewed here: Wikipedia:Mediation

Basically it involves one or two neutral wikipedia contributors coming in and investigating what is going on. There is no need on their part to understand the actual issue, just so long as they can try to help the two warring parties to come to a compromise.

If this fails, then arbitration is necessary. See here: Wikipedia:Arbitration policy for more details. Basically it means that a number of senior contributors get together and examine both sides of the argument. Together they then make a decision, and order a "cease and desist" motion towards the losing party.

Now if this fails, and the losing party continues the edit war, then the matter becomes very serious. If the losing party does not comply, then Wikipedia can ban you from editing for a time commensurate with your actions.

I'm just letting you know all this in case we get into a mess. I don't want to go to mediation, let along arbitration. I want us to settle this ourselves.

You two appear to attend Potters House. That is good. It is always good to get people who adhere to movements to articulate their beliefs. No one can ever be unbiased - including me - which is why Wikipedia is good for people to work together to make something neutral.

One of you I know has visited my user page. If you scroll down the page you will discover a list of articles that I have written or edited. Check them out to see how I write. Even though I myself am biased, I always try hard to write in a neutral fashion here at Wikipedia.

Just for the record - I am not a Charismatic or Pentecostal christian. I am a Reformed Evangelical. While I have visited a number of C/P churches I have yet to visit a Potter's house. I do know an ex-PH member who did describe to me the problems he had when he was in the church - but that is the extent of my knowledge.

I suggest that you wait for my re-write and then comment on it. By all means make changes to it, but be careful what you do - always ensure that the tone of the article is neutral - neither pro-PH nor anti-PH.

What needs to happen Version 2

Mainly directed at Neil, but all who want to be involved please indicate your participation here.

Please do not spend the time to rewrite the article yet, as we need to assemble the truth here first in order to have the complete picture, 1 topic or fact at a time. I was surprised that the article went so long with misspelt names and no reference apart from a minority forum/group that is hate based.

If one understands the Bible then one would understand it is important to relate the facts. If the police force has a 2% corruption factor does it mean that the ideals or the police force is in fact a cult or should be closed down - NO it simply means each officer involved took it upon himself to be corrupt - which at that point in time, although he may be employed by the force - the fact is he has disassociated himself from the force and will be removed on discovery of the offence, and thus at the moment of offence became not part of the bond to the employer. So the facts of how a church or what its doctrine are will not change unless it is from headship and clearly communicated to the rest of the church.

It is my wish to not have an edit war, and yes I am not familiar with Wikipedia however I am passionate for the truth - and that’s why I am a Christian, and from my research on you, you are also a Christian but from the Presbytery in opposition to Fundamental Pentecostal Theology, this does not make it impossible but hard, but if you are willing to establish every fact as per the bible and with reference to credible source only, then we can work together on this. Please remember that most credible people can be established by their fruits, and hate and slander are not the fruit of a Christian nor are they to be acceptable to a information site. A good thing when discussing bible study is to use the 8 rules of interpretation, which can be found at http://www.pottersclub.com/articleshow.asp?art_num=11

Interpretation does have a method for finding facts and we need to adopt a fact finding method or rule set or we end in an edit war with no real decent outcome, this site will be review by many people in the future and anyone leads people astray not only will their Credibility be affected but on an issue like this with Christians there is an accountability to God for the truth.

I too will stop research and full re-write as I have much information and so far not enough time to present it in the right format for this Wikipedia project.

Lets start with what I have up there now and move down in agreeance with facts and then edit appropriately. Please post Internet sites here first, and then discuss the facts before posting any further on the Article page.

Neil, Are you in agreeance with this? Is it best for me to contact you by email or keep it all here? I already have your email address but would not use it unless you request it.

By the way we probably know some of the same people I assume you are still at Waratah. I have been out of Jail now for 6 years and my whole life is devoted to the winning of souls to Christ, Church Planting and searching the truth of the word of the Bible. so my time frame is probably only 1 paragraph or fact per night, but even at that we will see a large amount of factual information expotentiated here.

Part 1 External Links

Please look at the original article and see that there were three links below:

1. http://www.pottershouse.com 2. http://www.pottershouse.com.au 3. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200412/s1271328.htm

The Links 1 and 2 need to be re-established as they are bonafide links to the church and its mission statements and even sermons - which if one was truly resourcing or researching, they would need access to them for a complete understanding from the church’s perspective. Which if you delve deep enough you will understand is what they teach in that Church.

Link 3 is a one off article on a ‘Pastor charged over shop carolling incident’ Now the one off article link needs to removed as it does not represent the other 99,999 potters house members, it only represented 1 member in which no complete outcome has happened yet.

All other links need to be qualified - and links to hate groups or anti-minority-groups that have a will to pull down or slander without fact should NOT be included.

I suggest a link to the disciples resource site which has doctrine and issue views by the members – not the church at http://www.pottersclub.com

I suggest a Link to The Door CFC as this is the 2nd church in command and has its own Church’s planted under The Door CFC – http://www.thedoorcfc.com

I suggest a link to the Founding Church’s site – anyone know what that is?

And please put more suggestions here for consideration and Discussion.

How I'll be doing it

I'll just be making re-writes to the article as I go. There is actually no need to have them approved here in the discussion forum first. That's how it goes in Wikipedia.

I've put in three external links to PH-critical sites. One is from the "Apologetics Index", which contains a lot of information about various movements in Christianity and religion today. The article itself is contra, but well written, and contains a lot of external reference material. The second link is to Charisma news, which reported in 2001 that over 100 churches left the movement (doesn't sound like a 2% corruption factor to me!). This needs to be left in. The third link is to a page that contains part of a book called "Churches that Abuse". This book was written in 1993 and was published by Zondervan, a large and well-known Christian publishing agency. This link, too, should be left in. The fourth link is a copy of a Newspaper article critical of the movement.

Rather than erase these links, it would be great if you could give one or more linked websites that attempt to answer these criticisms.

And you are?

Neil, Are you in agreeance with this? Is it best for me to contact you by email or keep it all here? I already have your email address but would not use it unless you request it.

By the way we probably know some of the same people I assume you are still at Waratah

You may have confused me with someone else. Who are you?

Why do you not want to establish facts first?

It astounds me that you have no wish to establish facts first - This should not be the response of a Christin nor an encyclopedia editor - so I will continue to revert until you start establishing facts not heresay.

You leave me no choice but to expose you - and in answer to above - You are:

(Details removed by User:One Salient Oversight)

And you are an adversary to the potters House Church and Pentecostelism. You have been noted for this and I must warn those who read this discussion of your total anti-Bias against the Potters House Church and yet you yourself state, that you have never attended.

You are not fit for the editing of articles because of your biasness and lack of will to seek facts and discuss them before posting - this would make you an extremely niave or an active opposer, there is free speech, but I thought this Wikipedia is for Facts. I feel sorry for you Neil as you are continuing a campaign against truth and will not listen to reason, Are you really serving God or Serving yourself? Do you really want to know or research facts, or just get the attention of an audience and feed them Points of View and un-substatiated Lies.

Bleeting Salient

Stop bleeting so much Salient - all your personal/business information is already freely available on the Internet - you yourself have published it - just do a search and presto its all there and it did not come from me - the majority was from your published account details and some from your website etc.

Don't be ashamed for your words - be happy and lets try to work together with facts.

I'm a noob but my Thoughts Pondered

  • This is quite a hot topic isn't it.
  • On one hand we have a anti and on the other a pro - will this ever amount to anything?
  • I can see both sides but why is there so much malice?
  • Maybe we can look at the history and see what the motives of the original creator were.
  • And then look at the changes made.
  • Should this article really be here.
  • Why not let someone else do the article (Its to hot for me, I am out of here)
  • Threats of Police and suing wooooohhhh.
  • Ban them both, I say.
  • Or just remove the article, its going no where - just confusion no common ground.
  • What would the church itself say?
  • How can an anti know what the church does if he has not been to it - (Good Point).
  • Can the Pro really know the facts - or is he brainwashed?
  • lets look at the references
  • hmmm.. church sites are ok.
  • Pentecostal Theolgy is not (nothing specific to this church)
  • The groups mentioned really have a beef with the PH but - I can't find a name or anyone willing to show proof?)
  • Rick Ross is not Credible.. come on guys!!! (he has labelled nearly 190 churches as cults, and he is a Jew. funny how they are mostly Christian Churches but some other real cults as well)
  • What about the facts 220.233.86.233 keeps going on about?
  • It seems that its a reasonable offer to work together.
  • Educated bullying doesn't work, I am sure the Edit War will continue unless both are banned.
  • Hands up anyone willing to have a go at a rewrite, Not associated to these two.
  • I'll personally switch off this article now, and leave you to it.
  • Entertaining though.

~~~~Fuzz

I know I said I didn't want to do anymore here, but I constantly see a team effort against 1 guy, and that's bullying, instead of deleting the submissions put a comment next to a paragraph and ask for:

  • 1: Explanation or
  • 2: POV removal or
  • 3: Reference Required

Then if no response in 3 days delete it, now that seems fair doesn't it?

PS. I am a noob do I have the sign off thing below right?

~~~~Fuzz


Hello Fuzz.

Not so important things first. Just put the four tildes in a row. don't put the "nowiki" things in front or back. Just the four tildes (the four do-dads from the top left of your keyboard)

Now to important things. The reason why there is a "team effort" is because when the guy basically went off at me, he published my full name, address, phone number and email address. Now when that happens on the internet, you get spooked. I went to all the people I had dealt with before and basically went "help!!!".

One of these persons was an administrator, and he was so sufficiently disgusted by the guy's threats that he felt that it constituted an immediate banning of his IP address if I so desired. I did so, and it was done.

I know you're a newbie, but what you've walked into here was not one of your run-of-the-mill disagreements between contributors. It turned from being a minor disagreement into threats within a few hours. This sort of thing does not happen often here at Wikipedia.

Now I type four tildes. One Salient Oversight 10:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Fuzz, thanks for your efforts. There's two concerns here: 1) Legal and/or personal threats (which are not tolerated on Wikipedia); and 2) writing an article from the NPOV. This user provoked a strong response (at least from me) because of (1); I wouldn't like to think of it as "bullying". Your edits to combine the new information with the old criticism are a good step in the direction of neutrality, thanks. Remember, we don't want to take any sides here, or present information as fact when at least some parties disagree about it. — Matt Crypto 11:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Matt,

(Off topic) I checked your links on crypto hmmm.. I used to be into it, I am a programmer now, but I am ex military and have an interest in Cryptology, I used to write my own algorythems but hey thats 6 years ago, pretty hard to beat whats up there now.

(Back on Topic) Matt did you really look at the whole thing or just side with an old mate? If someone gets banned how do they get to defend themselves? It kinda scares me that, it's like sudden death here, he with the most mates and knows the system wins. I saw that the reason that he posted those details was to put the background in on someone, yes I know he went overboard, but I think he did say he was a noob too, Where is the rules and conditions for these kind of things? I must go and read them myself. When I was searching on the net for myself, I found all those personal details within minutes. Matt I appreciate your comments on the Leave it all in and make it nuetral, after reading it all again it needs a lot of work. And to think this was the first article I came across on Wikipedia, I was searching for more info on the Potters House Christian Fellowship. I got involved trying to help and it feels now like it is a bit of touchy subject, I have really started looking deeper into the doctrine and background because of what was posted here, and the plees for facts. Is Wikipedia really about facts or just opinion, I looked at some other stuff from churches even so called Bad Churches and gues what? No links to negative sites, references were there, If I was a Judge I would call the very first person to account Benm on his Article and expansion, I cant find the facts to what was said, If you can, can you show me please. I now feel more than ever this Church Group is not getting a good rap here, but as 220.233.86.233 puts it 'Slander', we need to have proof or it is personal opinion.

Personal info: I have some freinds that go to this Church and I am going to ask them lots of Questions, I went a couple of times a while ago, I used to be Church of England(Anglican), I just wanted to find out more about the Church, But you can't trust what you read, thats for sure, I might even go again and maybe ask their Pastor. I wonder if they even know about this site? it does not appear to up long, I'll ask them.

Thanks for your direction on the sig thing.

12.111.25.4 12:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)Fuzz

The guy was banned because he was making legal and personal threats — one of the few ways you can get summarily blocked from Wikipedia — and at least one other administrator thought a ban was appropriate. I've only interacted with User:One Salient Oversight a couple of times before this — he seems to be an excellent editor, but it'd be premature to describe him as an "old mate".
This article still needs a lot of work: I don't really have time to get involved in this page, but we need to document all points of view, albeit neutrally. The article was neutral in wording before this blew up, but incomplete; selectiveness can be a source of bias. The additions were non-neutral in wording, and the criticism was deleted wholesale — this was the wrong approach. If this church has critics, then their viewpoint should be described and external links provided. Equally, there is a need for material to balance the criticism; and this too should be added, in a neutral fashion. Certainly we don't need phrases like "When last researched almost all who dislike or protest The Potters House Christian Fellowship, have trouble with submission, and seem quite bitter, and don’t to have True Biblical principles in their lives, and although only a very small minority are quite vocal on the internet." — Matt Crypto 13:02, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi All

I went to this link International Church of the Foursquare Gospel wich was on the article page and this Church has been around a lot longer and there is no Objectors or Criticisms and the Potters House Christian Fellowship is supposed to of come out of them in reballion but there is no mention nor is there a hate group or a recovery group, just by going to many churches mentioned in Wikipedia I cant find to much against them only this one??? I am questioning more and more, and to think I was not going to come here anymore.

12.111.25.4 12:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)Fuzz

Remember that many Wikipedia articles are very incomplete. If there is a lot of criticism about a group, then it should be added. If it hasn't been added yet, that doesn't necessarily imply anything about the acceptance or otherwise of that group by Wikipedia: it just means the article isn't complete yet. — Matt Crypto 13:02, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My 2 Eurocents

Thanks for all your comments so far Fuzz. I'm glad that you're seeking answers and making us explain things to you - that actually shows that you want to know the truth.

Firstly a point about tracking down my name and address and email address. Can you please tell me how you did this? Once the address was revealed, of course it was easy to track me down. But let's assume that you did not have the address in the first place. How was it achieved?

Secondly a point about the Potter's house that your friend goes to.
If my research into the church's history is correct, the Potter's house underwent two major splits. One in 1990 and another in 2001. In both cases hundreds of churches left the denomination - and my research indicates that many left because of concerns about how controlling of its members the church had become. I'm the first to admit that my own church is far from perfect, and it stands to reason that there are good and bad in all churches (though, I would still assert, there are some worse than others). The church your friend goes to may be a great church... or it may be a very controlling church. Either way you can't make any clear judgements. By all means speak to him and gain more information about the church... if only for the sake of having a better Wikipedia article.

Thirdly a point about the Potter's House and pentecostal churches generally.
It appears as though the Potter's house, while adhering to "classic" Pentecostal theology, has a very distinctive control mechanism over its members. At Apologetics Index, this is classed as a "cult of Christianity". Essentially this means that the group exhibits cult-like behaviour towards its members while holding to beliefs which are held by the wider church. The church of the foursquare gospel is certainly a Pentecostal church, but it does not have this control over its members (generally speaking) - hence the lack of websites and Wikipedia information that would criticise it. Criticisms of Charismatic and Pentecostal belief is an article that describes the criticisms of Charismatic and Pentecostal churches generally without being specific on any one group.

Now the question - is User:Truth over Relationship's actions typical of someone who goes to a church that is highly controlling, who has a warped sense of what is true and what is not true, and who will assert that strongly when given no choice? I think so. --One Salient Oversight 21:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More Info and Questions

to One Salient Oversight

A whois search on your website reaveals nearly everything, and your user page reveals everything else. Please remember I am a Forensic Programmer, so this means I might get there quicker, But none the less it is available. I am baffled by your above response, I'll answer tommorow, i have more info. In the mean time, What does neutral mean???

220.233.86.223 10:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)Truth over Relationship

To Fuzz

Don't let One Salient Oversight scare you from going to a service with your mate - I have never seen mind control or cult activities in the 6 six years I have been going, He is a hater of Pentecostal Christians and especially the Potters House.

220.233.86.223 11:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)Truth over Relationship

omigosh... did I just stumble into Talk:Jihad or an Arab Israeli article?!? I hear all this "hater" talk from totally unreasonable people, who try to impose their own POV on others, on articles such as these ones. Now we have another user, who even goes so far as to leak personal details (even if they are public) on Wikipedia - all done to intimidate the user who edits the article! So much for "truth over relationship". - Ta bu shi da yu 23:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To One Salient Oversight

Do you know Stewart Cameron? - I am doing some research] on Stewart Cameron who left from Melbourne and caused some trouble are you related?. I also see you like to list the names of PH Christian Members who have been in trouble or have had some bad press - you should look at what you do, you fly blind with no respect for giving true references. and One Salient Oversight how you are quick to throw accusations and I find you do everything the same as you accuse me. I am a Christian and also wish to apologise for putting your details up here, I had no idea you were going to be so upset, you actually threatened me first, I just said be careful of Slander you may get charged for that and your details were to show how easy you are trackable] on the net. I still wish you would put real references in not Slander. Just keep to the facts. you'll have no further trouble from me unless it is inadvertant.

220.233.86.223 11:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)Truth over Relationship

To Fuzz 2

Fuzz I am new thanks for some support. Just watch this guy he is active at trying to convert Pentecostal Christians away.

Be assured the 'Day of Pentecost' was a real event in which the 120 in the Upper Room were Filled with the Holy Spirit and Spoke in New Tounges, This is Biblical and is still relevant today for those who pray to be filled with the Holy Spirit.

A person who accepts only part of the Bible and not the Bible Entirely is in danger of going off track and will miss the full understanding and teaching of Jesus. Please look it up for yourself don't be misguided by Lies of the Devil, and know that there is battle going on for your soul and that Satan will throw almost anything at you to throw you off couse, including A Religous Wolf dressed in Sheeps clothing. I say stick to the straight and narrow way and find the answers for yourself by studying and finding credible people to ask questions from, you cant beat testing the comments of people by looking up the Bible for its reference.

You will not be fed Lies if you attend a service I encourage you to see for yourself. There is a policy in the Potters House that the door swings both ways, so some people come and some go, this is not bad in itself, it is a healthy purging of the church, as if there is no outflow, there can be no inflow. You can wonder now Now, how can there be cultish control if people just come and go? As Salient said above people leave - I say 'so what, thats there choice' so his label of cult is wrong by his own admission.

220.233.86.223 11:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)Truth over Relationship

The irony here is that even if One Salient Oversite had been trying to convert Christians from Pentecostalism, he would not have had to do much. What you did has been far more effective in causing people to doubt the organisation than had you had a calm and rational discussion and tried to edit for consensus. Trying to "win" on this site by doing disruptive and harsh things tends to show how unreasonable you are. You have not made many friends by doing what you've done. In fact, you earned a permanent ban. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please Explain Salient

In your 2 Eurocents Edit above you say 'distinctive control mechanism' please what is that? I have no idea at all - it is very ambiguous and unwise for an editor with the respect you have from Matt to just put words, Phrases and Slants in Text with out explanation. please tell us how the PH Church actually does this, Ha if you can that is, please be very specific and give reference and dont quote Slam the Door they don't have any names or real back up for any so called abuses. I could write a thousand articles on a person or group being an abuser without reference or names does that mean that they would be credible - NO. So try and be Truthfull about it.

220.233.86.223 12:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)Truth over Relationship

More Archival Links

The debate above also continued on my user page. To see this, go to User talk:One Salient Oversight/ - Potters House archive

The RFC can be viewed here: Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/user 220.233.86.223

One Salient Oversight 12:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Potter%27s_House_Christian_Fellowship/Archive_1&oldid=1154713794"