Talk:Every Nation Churches & Ministries/Archive Maranatha

message: According to several links in the "external links" section, Broocks, Bonasso and Murrell were once part of Maranatha, and no fewer than five churches operate under corporate paperwork adopted while they were part of Maranatha.  
: I didn't ask you for evidence I'm asking you to cite what you consider to be the relationship.  The article does a nice job on presenting "evidence" what it is lacking is a clear statement of the charge.  An answer would be something like, "Every Nation is the successor of Maranatha having absorbed most of its staff, its theology, ritual, methodology and function"  Or something like "Every Nation is a rebranding of Maranatha" (asserting a direct relationship).  
:: Here are some clearer, NPOV statements from my last edit.
::From the top page:
::Several of Every Nation's leaders and ministries have past connections to Maranatha Campus Ministries, a highly controversial Charismatic organization from the 1980s. Some believe that Every Nation is simply Maranatha in a new guise--a claim denied by Every Nation and its leaders.
::From "Links to Maranatha":
These corporate ties, combined with similarities in practice, have led some observers, including former Every Nation and Maranatha members, to conclude that Every Nation is simply a revived version of Maranatha.
::I hope these help.
I noticed that Thelma left the "Links to Maranatha" section untouched in her edits.
IIf you feel that the first sentence about Every Nation and Maranatha is too POV, I can change it, no problem.
: I don't have any opinion yet on any of the content.  My opinions are about conduct and process.  
2 -  I personally believe, as a former Every Nation member, that there is uncontestable evidence that Every Nation is Maranatha. At the very least, Every Nation is a direct descendant of Maranatha (the organization's attempts to distance itself from the past notwithstanding) based on the substantial number of former Maranatha pastors, churches and ministries that are now part of Every Nation.  For the sake of NPOV issues, I believe it should be noted that while several observers believe Every Nation is Maranatha, Every Nation maintains that it is a new organization.
3 -  I propose rewording the whole first part of the "Links to Maranatha" section in a more neutral manner.  For instance, replacing that sentence in question with:  As mentioned above, several of Every Nation's leaders and churches have past ties to Maranatha Campus Ministries.  Then, after the paragraph about Every Nation's leaders being silent about their Maranatha past, mention this:  These corporate ties, combined with similarities in practice, have led some observers, including former Every Nation and Maranatha members, to conclude that Every Nation is simply a revived version of Maranatha. They note that the top positions in Every Nation are held almost exclusively by former Maranatha leaders (such as Broocks, Bonasso and Murrell), or were directly trained by someone who was in Maranatha.  I figured POV issues were the main bone of contention here, so I revised it last night in hopes of addressing them.  It was certainly not my intent to alter the process.
:  I don't know what her issues are, my first step is to ask her for clarification.  My main proposal is that most of the Maranatha stuff gets pulled out and we have a very short section which simply asserts the fact and then we move on.  "have led some observers to conclude" is classic WP:WEASEL we aren't going to have "some observers" we are going to have a clear cut source like (xyz anti-cult group, abc group of former members...).  By in large the why Maranatha is the father  of Every Nation only needs lots of elaboration if there is a firm denial. I'm actually hoping for consensus language on this point, which I think is far better than an argument of any kind.    However until I get a firm denial one I'm not sure that level of detail is needed.   Then all the insinuations throughout the article get dropped regardless.    Once Every Nation is categorized properly it can be dealt with like any other subdominational church group.  See something like Unitarianism  for what I'm aiming for.    If the whole article is going to center around the controversy then I want facts addressed.  Society of St. Pius X would be an example of a highly controversial religious group with a well written article focusing mainly on the controversy.  
: As an aside think about the problem she faces from her side if she tries for a denial.  
:# same primary denomination
:# same theology
:# same target audience
:# same leadership
:# some shared physical resources
:# same ritual
:# similar technique 
:# etc, etc. etc...  
: Would you want to have to defend the firm denial case?  I doubt she goes down that road which is why I think we can get consensus language.
Hope this helps.  Blueboy96 20:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does.  Thank you. jbolden1517Talk 22:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Nothing do you have any objection to this being in a dedicated section and not addressed throughout the article?  Their complaint is where it is, they agree these people are EN leaders and they agree that 20 years ago they were in Maranatha.  jbolden1517Talk 05:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blueboy96's information on ties to Marantha, dialogue with jbolden1517 

message: OK, let's rock and roll ...
I don't see what's wrong with noting that Broocks, Bonasso and Murrell are former Maranatha ministers ... what's POV about listing past affiliations?  It can be done in a neutral manner.  Previous versions of that statement did not include anything accusatory.
: Nothing do you have any objection to this being in a dedicated section and not addressed throughout the article?  Their complaint is where it is, they agree these people are EN leaders and they agree that 20 years ago they were in Maranatha.  jbolden1517Talk 05:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More response from Blueboy96

message: Re-title as Criticism. Per the suggestion of jbolden, we are proposing to move all of the discussion on Maranatha to this section, which will contain an "on the record" statement regarding our connections to Maranatha.
:Some former members of Maranatha and Every Nation contend that Every Nation is a rebranding of Maranatha Campus Ministries (MCM) – a campus ministry founded by Bob Weiner. While it is true that several Every Nation pastors, including Rice Broocks, Phil Bonasso and Steve Murrell, were active as campus ministers in Maranatha in the 1980’s, Every Nation unequivocally rejects the excessive teachings and practices of MCM, specifically: controlling discipleship, authoritarian leadership, and theological mysticism.  Broocks, Bonasso and Murrell fully supported the dissolution of MCM in 1989, after which the majority of its churches changed their names and continued to function as local churches. Some joined Vineyard, Foursquare Gospel, or a variety of other denominations and networks. Others merged with local churches, dissolved or became independent. Today there are over 400 Every Nation churches worldwide, of which approximately 15 (or less than 4%) were formerly Maranatha churches.
Whereas in the previous versions these issues and the scandals were made to be the entire focus of the article, and accounted for about 80% of the total content. If the purpose of this entry is to try and create a “great encyclopedia article,” I do not believe it is fair to give so much space to Maranatha and the scandals – first, for every bad apple (any organization this large is bound to have bad apples – we acknowledge that fact – just ask the Roman Catholic Church or the Republican Parties) there are 1,000 good testimonies of people whose lives have been changed for the better, of relationships restored, familes reconciled, people who overcame drug and alcohol dependency, etc. We can add all of these if you want us to but I would rather appeal to Blueboy that we keep this article to be written like an encyclopedia and move the “Maranatha” discussion back to the blogs and internet discussion forums. EN does not deny that Rice Broocks, Phil Bonasso and Steve Murrell were part of Maranatha in the 1980’s as young campus ministers in their 20’s. However, EN has been making every effort in the past couple of years to root out negative practices and doctrine precisely because that is not condoned. We are realistic enough to acknowledge that there probably still are bad apples in the mix but the fact remains that if any Maranatha-style doctine or practices have crept into an EN church, it is still not official doctrine or policy or practice, nor is it condoned. Every Nation 09:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the into paragraph into a meld of your and BlueBoy's ideas.  Let me know if this captures what you were aiming for.  jbolden1517Talk 14:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I disagree on the Links to Maranatha section.  Much of that has already been verified.Blueboy96 07:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thelma and Misha's Proposed Edits to Links to Maranatha Section

message: I would like to request again for the removal of the Scandals and Links to Maranatha sub-sections, to be replaced by my suggested re-write under the new sub-heading Criticism.  Since the burden of proof rests with Blueboy, I'm asking if we can remove those sections to the Talk Page until this mediation has been resolved. Thank you! Thelma Bowlen 07:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I disagree on the Links to Maranatha section.  Much of that has already been verified.Blueboy96 07:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to Move Scandals/Links to Maranatha to Talk Page

message: Re-title as Criticism. Per the suggestion of jbolden, we are proposing to move all of the discussion on Maranatha to this section, which will contain an "on the record" statement regarding our connections to Maranatha.
Some former members of Maranatha and Every Nation contend that Every Nation is a rebranding of Maranatha Campus Ministries (MCM) – a campus ministry founded by Bob Weiner – a claim that Every Nation maintains is false. While it is true that several Every Nation pastors, including Rice Broocks, Phil Bonasso and Steve Murrell, were active as campus ministers in Maranatha in the 1980’s . . .
Thelma BowlenTalk 14:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Edits to Links to Maranatha Section

message: OK, let's get going again.
I propose the following paragraph be included at the beginning:
Some of Every Nation's ministers and ministries have past ties to Maranatha Campus Ministries, a controversial  Charismatic organization from the 1980s.  Every Nation has publicly renounced Maranatha's more controversial teachings and practices.  Some members contend, however, that some of these teachings are still practiced, and even go as far to say that Every Nation is a revived Maranatha.  Every Nation, however, strongly denies this.
: See the new intro paragraph and tell me if it meets your criteria.  jbolden1517Talk 14:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 2

message: Inserting the phrase “former Maranatha ministers” immediately puts an immediate negative bias on the article. This would be akin to starting George W. Bush’s entry with: “In 2000, former alcholic George Bush became the 43rd president of the United States.” Or Bill Clinton’s with: “In 1994, adulterer William Jefferson Clinton became the 42nd president of the United States.” Again, I appeal for the Maranatha issue to be dealt with in one section at the bottom so that Every Nation is shown the same courtesy as other entries in Wikipedia.Misha Arturovich 09:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is still a point in dispute.  We'll get it out but not in this round.  We still are disputing whether Marantha became Morning Star International became Every Nation.  This is going to take a couple more rounds to get moved, since I'm still aiming for consensus language in the maranatha section and you haven't agreed to anything quite this strong.  Basically the question is drop, rewrite or move, and I'm not sure which yet.  jbolden1517Talk 20:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You are making a good point here.  Blueboy what evidence do we have that " It [Every Nation] has a vision especially for changing the arts and entertainment industries"?  jbolden1517Talk 20:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: These are churches that choose to join – it is not mergers and acquisitions. “Acquired” is a loaded term that tries to imply that it was a takeover.Misha Arturovich 09:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thelma or EN, what is the financial relationship between EN and its member churches?  jbolden1517Talk 20:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There were less than 15 former Maranatha churches which later changed their names and joined Every Nation – this has already been addressed in the paragraph titled criticisms below. Again, Maranatha should not be the focus of this article. If that is to be said, it is equally fair to identify the In Focus Church as a former Southern Baptist Church, etc.Misha Arturovich 09:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What was the order here, SB -> Mar -> MSI or Mar -> SB -> MSI or ...? I also agree on the focus issue but lets separate the two issues out for now.  jbolden1517Talk 20:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History edits (thelma and misha) 

message: Replies to jbolden questions re MSI and EN
#Thelma and Misha I was kind of shocked by the harsh language regarding Maranatha. 
##What do you believe they did that was so wrong? 
##Also can you explain to me what differences in theology, doctrine and practice there is between EN and Maranatha. 
#It sounds like the fact that MSI was the old name for Every Nation is not disputed? Is this correct? 
#What percentage of the existing Maranatha churches became MSI churches? In 1994 how many MSI churches were there (i.e. what percentage of MSI was Maranatha)? Since you both agree that Marantha / MSI / Every Nation is rapidly growing I need to put the 15 churches in context.
:Easy question first – there is no disputing that Every Nation was formerly known as MSI (we added a section about the reasons behind the name change in the proposed re-write for the History section).
:There were three primary things that were wrong with the teaching and practices of Maranatha: authoritarian leadership, controlling discipleship, and theological mysticism. The difference between EN and Maranatha is that EN believes all of these were completely wrong and does not promote or condone any such practices. The way they have been addressed is as follows: 
::Re: authoritarian leadership and controlling discipleship, this has been addressed in EN’s official discipleship policy (which we have referenced elsewhere) that sets out very clear limits re what a leader or discipler can and cannot do. This issue is often addressed by Steve Murrell, as you can see from his article “Position or Power?” on the everynation.org website, and his sermon called “Discipleship Boundaries,” also on the website. This was also directly addressed in Rice Broocks’ book, “Every Nation in Our Generation” (published in 2002) which devotes a good part of chapter 2 to the problems with Maranatha and what he did to try and learn from the mistakes of the past. Re theological mysticism, Broocks states that there were “concerns that mysticism had crept in, placing too much emphasis on subjective experiences rather than the Word of God” (p.49).  Maranatha was also criticised for a lack of sound theological foundations. As a result, after Maranatha disbanded, Rice Broocks enrolled in Reformed Theological Seminary and earned his masters degree. This is also one of the primary reasons the two-year Bible School, ENLI, was developed by Steve Murrell and adopted as the local bible school for all of EN’s churches. Thelma BowlenTalk 14:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answers to MSI/EN questions