Talk:Simple church

message: (Suggestion to add a sub-paragraph)
Compare/Contrast with Home Church.  
Simple Church appears to compare with Institutional and Home Church when both describe themselves as existing to promote the teachings of Jesus Christ.  The primary difference is revealed when there is a lack of common promotion of the "church" (Church being defined as the employment of special people, meeting in special places, using special rituals.)  
Simple Church appears to center around a person of uncommon charisma, understanding, virtue, friendliness, and hospitality, but with only the capacity (space, staff, money, or program) of an individual.  The focus of that person determines the kind of church it is.  When that person focuses on the teachings of Jesus and encouraging those to believe in Jesus (salvation), follow his teachings (followership), and helping others promote the same (discipleship), then there are many similarities to Institutional and Home Church.  When that person focuses on other things, the similarities are limited.  
Home churches appear to center around the creation of economic opportunities, capacities, and progress from the capacity of an individual (space, staff, money, and program) to the capacity of an institution, with "home" being an early stop on the long road.  
A distingishing preinciplal between Simple Church and Home Church, is that a Home Church is hoped to grow into an institutional (or missional) church with paid staff, whereas a Simple Church has no interest in providing employment opportunities.  (First Annual Home Church Conference, Roundtable Discussion: Northern California Table.)
Jerryocrow (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We could include text such as this, but it might be better for readers to digest the simple church article and house church article and compare and contrast for themselves.  Comparison in most cases involves judgment, so it's very difficult to maintain the neutral point of view necessary for credibility.  If the above section was re-written to describe different comparisons made by specific people and groups that could be linked to referenced works, it would be a great addition. --Oakiebsc (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sub-topic: Compare/Contrast with Home Church 

message: Why do you think it is not evangelical? Which of cross-centred, Bible-focused, activist and conversionist does it not adhere to? Which non-evangelical groups have influenced it? Hyper3 (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one definition of evangelical, but not the only one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevescheller (talk • contribs) 20:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which definition do you prefer? Bebbington above is the most popular. I am surprised that simple church advocates might distance themselves from Evangelicalism, unless of course they are emerging church folks also, which makes it more complicated. Hyper3 (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree with "Evangelical" as a category, especially sociologically.  The majority of simple church leaders I know are also theologically Evangelical, but given the lack of formal Orthodoxy, I wouldn't like to place to many theological labels on simple church. --Oakiebsc (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

text: That's not the only problem this article has. It's very arbitrary, promotional, and needs a general edit for objectivity. 74.194.175.107 (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evangelical  

message: How could this not be a controversial, when the blurb on Frank Viola's book says: "This volume makes an outrageous proposal: That most of what we Christians do in our churches has no root in the New Testament!" From any neutral point of view, "controversial" is simply reporting the fact of their being different sides in a debate. Hyper3 (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Few people would see your word controversial and equate it with the meaning Frank Viola communicates here.  The question is whether all the movement and all those viewing it see it as controversial which is the universal sense in which you use the word.  When there is disagreement, which side of the debate is controversial?  The use of this term is unnecessary and one some would find inflammatory and not characteristic of encyclopedia-type material.  Let the reader decide if it controversial, or at least say some find it controversial, but it is not the place of the encyclopedia to make that call.  Also, although Frank Viola is one leader in the movement, I would bet the vast majority of those simple churching have never heard of him.  Is it fair to call it controversial when many of those doing it have never heard of Frank?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevescheller (talk • contribs) 20:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversial just means that considerable debate surrounds the ideas of the movement. Both sides of the debate engage in the controversy. The first sentences are meant to be a short summary. Hyper3 (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

text: As the original author of this article, I agree with Hyper3's use of "controversial" as a descriptor, but I would prefer language that is encyclopedic: "many consider controversial" with a reference to at least three sources is much better than just adding "controversial".--Oakiebsc (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial  

message: I don't get the purpose of some of the pictures in the article. Specifically the one of the hands and the dove. It makes the article look more the like a promotional pamphlet then anything. It doesn't add to the article. If we are going to have pictures, it should be pictures of the article subject, not random clip art. --Unsigned post.
No kidding! 204.65.0.25 (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Simple 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/20070927002242/http://metrosoul.org/whatwedo.shtml to http://metrosoul.org/whatwedo.shtml
*Added  tag to http://www.dcfi.org/House_Church_Sem_One_Day.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100823041937/http://simplechurchathome.com:80/Bible.html to http://www.simplechurchathome.com/Bible.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927002242/http://metrosoul.org/whatwedo.shtml to http://metrosoul.org/whatwedo.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Simple 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Mar01%20/Art_displacedpastor.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120302005942/http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/blogs/520-fire-in-my-bones/13063-barnas-dangerous-proposal to http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/blogs/520-fire-in-my-bones/13063-barnas-dangerous-proposal
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified