Talk:Saddleback Church

message: I can see how it would be entirely appropriate to have criticisms and debates within a Wikipedia article.  I wonder, however, if the links section in this article goes too far.  In fact, for the individual who is expressing his opinions through them, I think that s/he would find it far more useful to boil it down to one or two powerful links, thus appearing more neutral.
Just one user's thoughts...
--Jelgie 18:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links - Criticisms 

message: The continuous references to "God" expanding this or that ministry in this (Saddleback) church is clearly POV by any reading of Wikipedia's policy. I have to wonder how many readers would even be offended by it. 
If anyone argues that it is not POV but "fact", please consider this: What if I said that it was really Satan driving the expansion of this church? Wouldn't someone (rightfully) point out that that was POV?
On a personal note, I think it is foolish, dangerous, and disrespectful to ascribe the success of a particular church to "God". How dare you! InFairness 05:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you and I have found similar POV on here when authors claim the church is growing by dynamic speaking techniques. lets fix it! Scottdude2000 (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant POV 

message: Okay, really don't wanna get involved with this article, but... while it may be true that Left Behind does take place in the end times and does involve people getting shot, "Ties to violent end times video game" is still POV. Two reasons: (a) It's arbirtrary that you chose to draw attention to these two facts to the exlcusion of others. It could also be described just as accurately as "Ties to modern-era real-time strategy game", or even "Ties to video game which has lots of concrete." An anti-concrete activist would be particularly offended by such a game, and would want to make sure that everyone knows that Saddleback has ties to such a debacle. So, the fact that two particular aspects of the game are being highlighted displays a POV on the game itself. (b) "Violence" is a relative term. I'm sure Left Behind is less violent than, say, Grand Theft Auto. Actually, I'm sure it's less violent than the Bible. So, to use it implies a judgment on the game which is extraordinarily difficult to make objectively. Hope this helps. Korossyl 13:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to say Christians are as bad as ISIS, and thus need to have accusations of molestation by a church member etc. prominently mentioned in the article on that church. I suggest that this position would need an actual WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion, thus have removed that accusation from the article. Collect (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left Behind 

message: What is this about? I can't seem to find anything on it and I'm curious. Strawberry Island 07:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddleback church settlement  

message: This has been moved from the article for discussion.
:Saddleback is currently one of the most well-known and influential churches in the world.http://www.inplainsite.org/html/saddleback_church.html
I don't think the source could be considered a reliable one. [www.inplainsite.org www.inplainsite.org] doesn't indicate in any way that it is anything other than one person's website. A google search for the author of the piece, David Cloud, shows that he has nothing in his background to make this kind of claim valid. In fact, his writings are apparently controversial in themselves. For this kind of claim, it requires a source with some editorial oversight and fact-checking. Pairadox (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well known and influencial 

message: I think what the church teaches shouyld be discussed. This includes beliefs on science/evolution and creationism and that pastors incorrectly claim humans lived with dinosaurs. 
On Saddleback Church website: he wrote the following on the evolution (mispellings in original):
31. Is evolotion part of God's plan?
Question: Why is it not OK for evolution to be part of God’s plan? I don’t understand what the problem is: couldn’t God have used the process of evolution as the way that He created the earth? 
Answer: When I was a new believer in Christ, I had some very strong feelings about the issue of evolution. Much as you have expressed, I believed that evolution and the account of the Bible about creation could exist along side of each other very well. I just didn't see what the big argument was all about. I had some friends who had been studying the Bible much longer than I had who saw it differently. But they didn't push me or argue with me, they simply challenged me to take some time to look into the facts and study the issues carefully. I'll always appreciate them for that, because this was an issue that I had to really think through. Eventually, I came to the conclusion, through my study of the Bible and science, that the two positions of evolution and creation just could not fit together... that there are some real problems with the idea that God created through evolution.
I would encourage you to take some time to study this issue. I found that, although I'd understood the science side of the equation, I needed to take some more time to read what the Bible really had to say about this subject. Not having taken the time to really read the Bible, I was very ignorant about what it had to say. Let me give you one example. I discovered that the problem of sin, as addressed in the Bible, was much more serious than I had previously thought. When I realized that the world was clearly a perfect place as God created it, and that this perfection was ruined by the sinful choice of Adam and Eve, it really started me thinking. Did the Bible teach evolution or did it teach the creation of a first man and woman named Adam and Eve? If we evolved, which human being would have made the choice that brought sin into this world? If Adam and Eve were just allegorical pictures, why did the New Testament place some much importance upon them as responsible and real individuals? Since God clearly says that it is our sin that brought death into our world, how could there have been death for billions of years before the arrival of the first man who sinned on the earth? As I asked questions about this issue and studied what the Bible had to say, I found it to be one of the greatest times of learning in my life as a new believer. My prayer is that you will have this same experience!
...
If you want to study this further...
Here's a web site that you might want to check out: http://web.archive.org/web/20051118164840/http://www.probe.org/content/section/13/67/ (One article that is especially thought provoking discusses "Darwin's Black Box").
On the website FAQ about dinosaurs:
30. What about dinosaurs?
Question: How do they fit in with the idea that God created the world rather than the world evolving on it’s own? Why doesn’t the Bible talk about dinosaurs? 
Answer: The Bible tells in Genesis 1 that God made the world in 7 days, and that He made all of the animals on the 5th day and the 6th day. All of the animals were created at the same time, so they all walked the earth at the same time. I know that the pictures we all grew up with in the movies were that dinosaurs roamed a lifeless, volcanic planet. Remember these are just pictures drawn by someone today! The Bible's picture is that dinosaurs and man lived together on the earth, an earth that was filled with vegetation and beauty.
What happened to the dinosaurs? The scientific record lets us know that they obviously became extinct through some kind of cataclysmic event on the earth. Many scientists theorize that this may have been an asteroid striking the earth, while many Christians wonder if this event could have been the worldwide flood in Noah's day. No one can know for certain what this event was.
Although it cannot be stated with certainty, it appears that dinosaurs may have actually been mentioned in the Bible. The Bible uses names like "behemoth" and "tannin." Behemoth means kingly, gigantic beasts. Tannin is a term that includes dragon-like animals and the great sea creatures such as whales, giant squid, and marine reptiles like the plesiosaurs that may have become extinct. The Bible's best description of a dinosaur-like animal is in Job, chapter 40. We don't know for certain if these are actually dinosaurs or are some other large creatures that became extinct.
...
In 2007 interview Warren said:
Do you believe Creation happened in the way Genesis describes it?
 
WARREN: If you're asking me do I believe in evolution, the answer is no, I don't. I believe that God, at a moment, created man. I do believe Genesis is literal, but I do also know metaphorical terms are used. Did God come down and blow in man's nose? If you believe in God, you don't have a problem accepting miracles. So if God wants to do it that way, it's fine with me.
This aspect of religion and opinion on science is important in describing their beliefs. Tgreach (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this belief notable though? Many evangelicals (especially pastors) would agree with him. He didn't come up with these beliefs. Its standard conservative evangelicalism. Ltwin (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddleback Church creationism 

message: I have added a link to where this term is being discussed. I have made a rationale for having this connection established at Talk:Rick Warren#Link to Saddlebacking in case we need a renewed debate on this matter. __meco (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We will leave it out until consensus is gained, then.  It is an obscure and purposely offensive slur, and there is still no need for it.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with your assessment that it is a purposely offensive slur, however, that is a POV we share. That it would be obscure is something that could be gauged by evaluating the press which this issue has received, and when doing that I believe the characteristic obscure not to be accurate. I can also live with leaving the term out of the article pending a would-be discussion. __meco (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To this point, it is primarily a blog-fed term without any real major media emphasis (the first five pages of Google-hits are all blog-sourced or links to the Savage wiki article (which doesn't mean it passes WP:V muster for inclusion w/ Warren or Saddleback).  And, even items that have appeared in the verifiable press are not always weighty enough to not be obscure.  So, it really is obscure, at best.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are right, that would dictate the removal from the article where it is being discussed. __meco (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The only possible exception is that the article it is currently residing in (as a small section) is about the author of the term, and the exception to the use of self-published sources for WP:BLP purposes is the subject of the biographical page.  (i.e. What Person A says about Person B in their own self-published materials might be acceptable for use in a page about Person A, even if it is not acceptable for use in a page on Person B.  This is one of the reasons why wikipedia, itself, cannot be used as a verifiable source for other articles.--Lyonscc (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[saddlebacking]] term 

message: Well I stepped into this edit war, which is unusual for me; usually I only arbitrate them, but a reading of the article struck me as unfair, so I've chosen this course of action. For those who are somewhat new on Wikipedia, being an administrator (which I am) doesn't grant any more weight to my opinion than anyone else who is editing in good faith (WP:NOBIGDEAL).
But my reasoning behind the issue is as follows:
* First off, I don't really like criticism sections; IMHO they're the Wikipedia equivalent for the journalistic "some critics of X claim" - i.e., their purpose is to insert one's own POV into the article. See Wikipedia:Criticism sections.
* The church is an evangelical church; evangelical churches, along with various other religious sects in the United States (e.g., JW, LDS, Fundamentalist Christians, Islam) are almost always opposed to homosexual marriage. Treating this particular group's opposition as something special is a case of WP:UNDUE unless their opposition is particularly of note (e.g., they were main players in the campaign and/or received a lot of press around it). And even then, I'm not fond of demarcating it into a criticism section, more like an "Opposition to Prop 8"/"Opposition to Homosexual Marriage" section (depending on the type of opposition which is notable). Mind you, I don't think listing their opposition to homosexual marriage is bad, but placing too much weight on it is, just as it would be bad to have an entire section devoted to the church's teaching on, say, the deity of Christ. 
* I also feel that Wikipedia plants a particularly strong emphasis on the scandal of being opposed to homosexual marriage, versus that of any other criticisms that come with the religious conservative movement in the US, e.g., opposition to feminism, opposition to abortion, the teaching of creationism over evolution, too much closeness to the Republican Party, etc. Any one of these could be considered a valid criticism, but for some reason we focus our criticisms on them only on their opposition to gay marriage. Indeed, this may be fair, but it is placing undue weight on the particular subject when there are other criticisms that abound just as much. Do not get me wrong - I hope to remain positively ambiguous as to homosexual marriage while editing Wikipedia (as I do with all subjects), so I'm not saying it's not scandalous or that it is - I just think it reflects our modern times too much. For example, 20 years ago the section would have read about the scandal of the church teaching that men are the head of the household, and women come second. Fifty years ago, it would have been the church's teaching on racism, and 150 years ago the church's position on slavery. It is my opinion we should try to avoid that WP:RECENTISM by including all of the relevant subjects on the matter, whether offensive or flattering, not just honing in on the one's that happen to offend us most at a given time.
This is kind of a wordy way of me saying I think the section is too long and a bit too scandal-mongering; sorry about that, but I think it's important that you all know the reasoning behind this sentiment (so that my opinion isn't just another loud complaining voice). Let me know what you think, and I will respond when I am around. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You might look at the interesting mediation on Rick Warren (especially the deleted parts), where it was finally decided that if a person or church subscribes to teachings of a denomination, that it is gratuitous to then separately list those beliefs and teachings  as a criticism of the person.  I am still dogged by some who were involved in the POV pushing there :(.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks maggog. The gist of what he wrote was that it wasn't wrong to cite the political activism and the subsequent media firestorm but the wording needed to be changed from criticisms to something else so as not to take on a POVish perspective. This I can understand and abide by. The section will be reposted after I've edited it to match Magog's criticisms as I think most of them were fair. Scottdude2000 (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just make sure you don't violate 3RR today. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  will do! I can be patient! Scottdude2000 (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And please post them here in a new section, so that they can be discussed and agreed that they meet Wikipedia guidelines.--Lyonscc (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll post it here but I will not wait till all agree since you've stated over and over that you don't want it to go live. you're biased. end of story. you can contribute to the work. but an arbitration on another guys page about a slightly different topic doesn't entirely apply here. you've followed me around from page to page trying to undo all the contributions I've made because you don't like it when churches look bad. I did sourcework and I even went so far as to find christian sources so I'm not playing a game of strawman. if I pulled articles from the NYTimes you'd say I was using a liberal bias. nothing satisfies your standards because your standards include no accountability for your theological heros. so I'm going to follow magog's instructions and work with everyone here (including the other people you steamrolled today) and post it. what  you do at that point is up to you. Scottdude2000 (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Scottdude2000 - please assume good faith here.  In this particular case, I noticed that you were making the same errors on a similar page as you did on this one.  Everyone has bias - it cannot be escaped.  The key is to not allow your bias to prevent fairness and neutrality in editing articles.  I would note that Magog did not "rule in favor" of anyone (as he noted), but rather gave his opinion on policies related to this article.  If you re-read what he wrote, he was not supporting any addition, but was supporting discussion on how to go about editing the article, and his own observations on criticism sections (not supportive of them) and trying to single out non-notable support of traditional marriage doctrine (which tends to result in WP:RECENTISM).--Lyonscc (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I did assume good faith till you admitted your biases. you've personally told me you don't want any of this to see the light of day. the similar edits occurred because it occured to me the two churches partook in similar actions but the accounts on both pages varied where they did different things. essentially I took advantage of my reseach on one and carried it over where it was valid and did the extra research on the other. some bias is unavoidable with everyone. completely making sure no criticism befalls your heros goes beyond normal. this thing is going to go up eventually. when it's ready. because as he said it is relevent to have a major media scandal and political activism noted on the organization's page. he might not have loved my methodology but he agreed to the necessity of all the facts being published.Scottdude2000 (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why [[User:Magog the Ogre|Magog the Ogre]] removed the section 

message: I will be requesting that Scott be blocked, because he has broken the 3RR (in which the first edit to the article counted as the first "revert").  This is clear POV-pushing and tendentious editing.  Let's follow the process and agree to changes here first.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked the rules again which I did before reverting. I don't see this in there. I didn't modify anyone's work I added my own. you modified my work. but if this is true I throw myself at the mercy of the system lol. Scottdude2000 (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize as a new editor, you may not understand the conventions, but you will not be held responsible for the 3RR if you return to the article to it's previous state and agree to changes on this page before escalating to an edit-war.  (and adding your own work is considered the first "revert".--Lyonscc (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: the rules say it's not a revert unless you're destorying another editor's material. I added a section as my first post and the admins are already starting to decide you are the one edit warring. maybe I'm unconventional but I'm not going to let this not run just because you seem to want it to remain in wikipurgatory forever. Scottdude2000 (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like Magog the Ogre reverted it to the original, as this is obviously a WP:COATRACK issue.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  maggog is on his way to show us all how it's done.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottdude2000 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

text:  magog essentially agreed that it should be up but wanted some of the language ironed out.  Scottdude2000 (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing of the Article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Saddleback Church. 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/20071020235230/http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/etv/images/etvnewsletter01.pdf to http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/etv/images/etvnewsletter01.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216145824/http://www.relevantmagazine.com:80/politics/ to http://www.relevantmagazine.com/politics/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Two editors who previously removed this information have posed questions in their edit summaries:
1. The church approved the molestation?
2. The church abetted the molestation?
3. Rv:Undue. Why is this relevant to this article?
4. Does every crime committed by a member become the responsibility of that org.?
1. & 2. No-one has made any such claim. The questions are irrelevant.
3. "Why is this relevant to this article?" Meulenberg has been associated with the church for six years, the alleged victims also attended the church, some of the alleged offences took place on church premises, and Meulenberg held a position of responsibility at the church specifically involving youth mentoring. It's hard not to conclude there is some connection. Meulenberg's parents are reported to be on the staff of the church and there is some question as to whether he himself was a volunteer as claimed or actually on staff. Meulenberg is also a person of some standing in the community having, with his twin, written religious children's books and developed a computer game based on the Bible. The stark contrast between nature of the offences and the stated aims and beliefs of the church is also cause for its inclusion.
4. "Does every crime committed by a member become the responsibility of that org.?" Now that is an interesting question - and in general I would give a cautious "no". If a member robbed a bank I wouldn't hold the Automobile Association responsible. But we're not talking about "every" crime, we're talking about this crime, and this organisation. "Responsible" has shades of meaning. Am I my brother's keeper? (The answer, remember, is supposed to be yes). Does a church have a responsibility to and for its members? How about a responsibility for its officers (whether paid or not)? And what about vulnerable minors who it places in the care of such officers? Does it have any responsibility towards them? 
The questioner can answer in the privacy of his conscience because, though interesting, it is as irrelevant as the first two questions. Wikipedia is not about apportioning blame, it is a record of fact. The desire of individual members to shield their church from uncomfortable facts is understandable but wrong-headed and counter-productive, giving an impression not of enlightened truth but rather of hypocrisy. The church's own comment on this case has the last word: "As followers of Jesus, we always want the whole truth to come out because Jesus taught us that lies enslave us, but the truth sets us free."http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-saddleback-youth-mentor-20170526-story.htmlhttp://abc7.com/news/oc-youth-mentor-accused-of-lewd-acts-with-2-teen-boys/2041417/https://www.ocregister.com/2017/05/26/saddleback-church-youth-mentor-arrested-on-suspicion-of-lewd-acts-with-2-boys/https://www.christianpost.com/news/saddleback-church-youth-mentor-arrested-for-lewd-acts-with-teen-boys-church-shocked-and-grieved-185536/http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/05/28/church-members-react-pastor-arrest/https://www.christianpost.com/news/was-saddleback-church-youth-mentor-who-was-charged-with-molesting-boys-a-volunteer-186188/http://alarryross.com/tornado-twins-develop-unprecedented-video-game-the-game-bible-series/
However I can see that giving the information its own section and arguably inflammatory heading is undue so I have merely added it to "History". Captainllama (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for discussing this issue on the talk page. I am against including the accusations of molestation on the grounds of relevance (please see wp:relevance # relevance level 3). Inclusion of irrelevant accusations may expose wikipedia to charges of libel. We just cannot "tar" the church with "the same brush" as one of its members. For this reason I will remove the offending edit. If you seriously believe that this information should be included in the article, consider opening a Request for Comment. I will cheerfully accede to whatever outcome results from that process. Jschnur (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meulenberg 

message: (1) There is no controversies section in this article, but there have been several controversies with the church: Including that the church is run like a business with a marketing plan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbrcRKqLSRw  The sexual assault charges brought against a youth leader (I don't agree with the language someone else used to point this out, but I do agree it is glaringly absent from this article) https://ktla.com/2018/08/23/saddleback-church-youth-mentor-convicted-of-molesting-teen-brothers-da/ and the controversy over the churches involvement in the 2008 presidential election http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1872453,00.html There have also been several criticisms of the church by other denominations and churches. Ignoring controversies when there have been controversies leads to the overall feel of bias. Someone needs to create a section addressing these (and any others).
(2) The "Campus" section only tells where different campuses are located. There is no description of what one will generally find when they visit the main campus. It seems there are multiple buildings: What are they? Are these standard on every campus?  In fact, the picture of the church doesn't even help. Since there seems to be multiple buildings, a map would be more relevant here than a picture of the entrance. There is no mention of the architect who designed the church layout. The "reference" in this section is actually a direct link to the online church services. http://www.gotochurchonline.tv/saddleback-church/ or https://blog.capterra.com/the-5-biggest-online-churches/ are better references. As it is written, this section seems to be more of an invitation to come to the campuses (or online services) instead of an unbiased description of what you would find there. "The Refinery houses Saddleback's middle school ministry (JHM), high school ministry (HSM), college ministry (CM), and young adults ministry, (Fuel)." and some of the other information about the Refinery that is found in the History section should be moved here, but there needs to be balance between all the buildings and ministries of the church-not just a highlight of one ministry that takes up the entire section.
(3) With over "80 different buildings" used, why is Laguna High School the only one mentioned and why is it then mentioned twice? Why is it mentioned twice there are 22,000 members in 2017?
(4) In the editing page, it states at the top "all information in the article should be fully sourced with reliable third party citations." The main body of the history section only has two citations and both of those are from the church website (which is not a third party source). Not surprisingly it reads like an advertisement for the church. The Purpose Driven Church section only references the websites that were set up by Saddleback Church for its specific ministries (again, not third party). In fact, 6 of the 12 references cited are church sponsored websites. Also in the history section-stating something was somebodies "dream" needs a reference to where that person made the statement in a third-party source. 
(5) Phrases like "the state-of-the-art facility is considered the premier student ministry facility" are opinions and not facts and should be deleted. "Saddleback is "virtually" attended online by those around the country and the world who watch and listen to worship services on demand" needs to be changed to remove the bias: "Saddleback offers worldwide, on-demand and live online services." OR the reference from a third-party that shows people attend these services "virtually" needs to be cited. "Attending" and "offering" are two different things, there is nothing on the primary source website that even shows anyone has visited it or watched a service, and finally, even if there were a counter on the website, it could be tampered with by church members since they own the website (I am not implying they would do this, I am just trying to point out that you cannot use primary source information for something like this). Another example of this language bias throughout the article is "the event is notable as the first time the two presidential candidates met during the campaign." This event, based on all descriptions I have read of it was not "notable" and it certainly wasn't talked about because it was the "first time the... candidates met." That statement should be deleted. "Notable" is an opinion and not a fact. This was not even a meeting many would agree was remarkable, such as the one between Nixon and Mao. Obama and McCain were already planning to meet in a televised debate later (as have all candidates since the 1960s). It was also not the "first time the... candidates met during the campaign" Both candidates were active senators throughout the campaign. They met on the Senate floor and even supported some of the same bills while campaigning against each other. The main reason the meeting with Warren was talked about afterward was because the liberals felt Warren posed questions that were biased against Obama in the meeting. If the meeting is to be mentioned in the Wiki article, it should be portrayed as it was- nothing special- and the controversy surrounding it should be mentioned in a controversies section. 
I came to Wikipedia for an unbiased view of this church and the controversies surrounding it. If I had wanted a biased view, I would have simply Googled the church website and looked at that. Hopefully, these issues will be addressed by someone who has the time, and hopefully church members won't attempt to delete the needed changes. 
P.S. By a "Controversies" section, I do not mean an in-depth he-said she-said debate as to whether or not the controversy is true. I mean "One youth pastor at Saddleback was recently convicted of behaving inappropriately with twins who were also members of the church in a movie theater." One or two sentences telling me what the facts are. That is all I want.
2601:245:C100:AAD0:35EA:6B43:4264:675B (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that any notable controversies should be included in the article. I do not know much about church, and any controversies, but the article as-is reads like a brochure from the church itself. However, Controversy sections are discouraged by wikipedia standards. Any controversial events should just be incorporated into the main article. Ashmoo (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Point of View 

message: Church Leadership wrong on Female pastors. 1 Timothy 2. 2601:5C5:4302:26E0:15C2:3C9C:6F01:A14B (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostasy