Talk:Bethel Church (Redding)

Can someone add a noble members list here?

I'm saying this as there some ex-fans and recent critics of Butch Hartman (and his wife) as a possible member there. And also where his controversial thoughts are likely current from. Chad The Goatman (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Notable members of the church itself? As long as it's sourced, and the people have articles, it's not unreasonable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Reverting edits about Sean Feucht

@Walter Görlitz: I really disagree with your revert of my edits. In the section about his concerts, I rewrote it slightly to be less about Feucht, not more, and related it more to the church by adding their statement that they supported him, which is relevant information for a reader about the church. For the image, my intention was not to add an image about Feucht, and as you can see, Feucht is one of several people in the image. Rather, my intention was to illustrate what a worship service at the church can look like. Can you please read my edits again and tell my why they were reverted?That pine tree (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you disagree, but the content is about the individual, not the church. No matter how much you rewrite it, it's still about Feucht. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, my issue is that with the revert, it's less about the church. Compare before and after:

Before

In mid-2020, Bethel worship leader Sean Feucht held a worship concerts across the United States to protest government restrictions on religious gatherings, and in a stated attempt to bring healing to cities with George Floyd protests.[26] When Feucht played in Redding, the church expressed concerns about the gathering of many people during the pandemic. In a different statement, the church remained supportive of his larger mission to "bring worship, prayer, healing, and unity into a landscape of division, violence, and unrest through the power and presence of Jesus".[26] Feucht claimed that he and senior Bethel pastor Beni Johnson were censored by Twitter and Instagram for sharing videos of the events and posting Bible verses.[27][28] His posts were shared by senator Josh Hawley who stated "Cancel culture meets #BigTech. Now @instagram is censoring a Christian worship leader who wants to post videos of praise and worship from places where there has recently been unrest."[28]

After

In mid-2020, Bethel worship leader Sean Feucht held a worship session at the site of the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis and claimed a revival was happening, calling it the "Minneapolis miracle".[26] It was followed by a series of "Riots to Revival" worship sessions in Seattle and Portland.[27] Feucht claimed that he and senior Bethel pastor Beni Johnson were censored by Twitter and Instagram for sharing videos of the events and posting Bible verses.[28][29] His posts were shared by senator Josh Hawley who stated "Cancel culture meets #BigTech. Now @instagram is censoring a Christian worship leader who wants to post videos of praise and worship from places where there has recently been unrest."[29]

Unless you make the case that it's not fitting for the page at all, which I disagree with because firstly, it's been there uncontested for a long time. Secondly, a senator tweeting about the church (both him and pastor Beni Johnson), is enough of a reason. That pine tree (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Unless you make the case that Feucht was acting on behalf of the the church, it's about Feucht and not about the church. We do not list the actions of every Roman Catholic on Catholic Church. We do not list the actions of every Conservative Jew in the article about Conservative Judaism. I could go on, but there is a threshold of Wikipedia:Relevance for inclusion, and in my opinion, Feucht's own actions belong on his page, not on this one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

He was not necessarily acting on behalf of the church, I will not try to read to much into this statement, but this is the full statement: “Sean Feucht’s mission is to ‘bring worship, prayer, healing, and unity into a landscape of division, violence, and unrest through the power and presence of Jesus,’ ” the statement said. “We love this vision, and celebrate him for leading from his convictions.”

If I understand you correctly, your opinion is that the paragraph does not belong at all on this page? That pine tree (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You read me correctly. There are various levels of involvement.

1. attendance
2. membership
3. volunteer (whether visible or not)
4. staff member, employee, elder, deacon
5. senior staff

Individuals at each of these increasingly important roles do not necessarily speak for or act on behalf of any evangelical congregation. There are similar roles in mainline protestant, Catholic and orthodox churches, parisehes, dioceses, synods or denominations. And unless anyone is acting on behalf of any level of an organized church, that church is not necessarily implicated in that behaviour.

Look at it this way. When you act, you are usually doing so as an individual. While you live in a neighbourhood, community, town or city, state or province, and nation, you do not represent those levels of community with your action. You may be employed by some company or someone, but unless you are acting on their behalf, you do not represent that company or person. There is no need to include this action in the article on the location or company.

Spun yet another way, not everything that Bill Gates does needs to be written about in the article on Microsoft. Not everything that Elon Musk does needs to be written about in one of his company's article. It is only when these individuals are acting on behalf of that company should it be mentioned there.

I trust I'm not being too vague in explaining this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Gap in the history

The history section jumps from 1954 to 1996. The Bill Johnson (pastor) article offers a hint about some of the missing history with

His father, M. Earl Johnson, previously held the Senior Pastor position from 1968 to 1982, when Bethel Church was part of the Assemblies of God.

Unfortunately, the cited source is behind a paywall and so I don't know if it supports the part about Earl Johnson. There would still be gaps in the history from 1954 to 1968 and 1982 to 1996.

I don't know how accurate or reliable it is but https://wrldrels.org/2017/04/28/bethel-church-redding-california/ has a time line and has details that look like they would be useful for this article. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Ex-gay activism

Bethel church has been engaged in a lot of ex-gay activism. Three of my well-sourced edits have been removed with no explanation by Walter Görlitz.

1) Adding an "Ex-gay movement" category to the article - the church actively promotes and sells ex-gay materials. Their ministry meets all the criteria of an ex-gay movement. Even if it is called "once-gay" rather than "ex-gay", it is still an ex gay movement.

2) In the CHANGED Movement section the sentence Bethel pastors behind CHANGED do not use the term "conversion therapy" is misleading because while true, it conceals the fact the church publicly opposed bills that would ban conversion therapy in California. My short sentence about it has been removed by Walter Görlitz.

3) The fact that Bethel church sells and promotes ex-gay literature and materials. This includes materials written by Ken Williams, the founder of the CHANGED movement - "6 Keys to Freedom From Homosexuality" and "The Journey Out: How I Followed Jesus Away from Gay". The titles should very much be included, as they are written by the founder, promoted and sold by the Bethel Church.

Why have these well-sourced edits been reverted by Walter Görlitz? Rayknee (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The sourced support pastors at the church are involved, but not the church itself. The content is wildly WP:UNDUE and WP:POINTy.

Many evangelical churches are involved in the CHANGED movement and sell material about it.` Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The reason was supplied in the edit summary, and you seem to be a recent editor with a single purpose. Care to explain your interest in the subject? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The source supports the involvement of the church itself. The movement was started by Bethel pastors who are paid by Bethel and have offices housed by Bethel. Bethel sells their materials and promotes the movement on social media. The fact that other churches sell materials produced by the Bethel pastors is irrelevant. It is very much about the church, just as much as the School of Supernatural Ministries and their other ministries. I have been interested in American charismatic movements for many years - Bethel is among some of the most politically involved churches, something which is very often overlooked. For example, before my edits the article had no mention of the church's stance on the Equality Act or their views on transgender people. The LGBTQ/politics aspect of the church certainly deserves to be expanded. It is certainly not undue weight - if a church campaigns for its members to contact senators, that deserves inclusion. If their pastors write books on how to stop being gay, that certainly deserves inclusion too. Rayknee (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The source itself is far from neutral.

Again, this topic at this article is the only thing you've edited. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Bethel's website is a fairly neutral source for the books authored by their pastor... As you pointed out yourself, I am a new user, so have not edited other articles yet. Rayknee (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

That's called a single-purpose account, and the question on the table is why this topic, and why this particular article, and why now? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Being interested in charismatic movements doesn't mean my account is single purpose. I am more than happy to write about what I feel knowledgeable about, but the remaining questions read to me a bit like ad hominem or very conspiratorial... Rayknee (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Couch it how you like, your actions do not demonstrate an interest in "charismatic movements" (either plural as you wrote it or singular, which would be correct use). It demonstrates in interest in the way this one congregation out of all Evangelical congregations has approached LGBTQ2S+ issues, and in particular, "conversion therapy". I get it. You do not want to make any specific statement on that. Just recognize that until you generate a larger edit history, any edits you make will be viewed with suspicion, although always within WP:AGF. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The impact of American charismatic movements on LGBTQ is certainly one of my interests. But please speak for yourself when you say my edits will be viewed with suspicion - I understand they might be viewed with suspicion by you, but I hope not by others. On my part I can assure all readers that I will do my very best to make well sourced and objective edits. Rayknee (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I was already speaking for the community when I made that claim. Read the already linked essay. SPAs are viewed with suspicion. Your actions have already drawn into question your neutrality on the subject. Is suspect that your recent addition will be reverted by other editors as UNDUE, but I can't be certain of that. I am not trying to cause problems, just explain your current situation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

There has already been much discussion in this section but I agree with Walter Görlitz. Rayknee you have good info and sources for the the "Changed Movement" itself, but I believe it causes an WP:UNDUE issue in this Bethel article, for the following reasons:

- First and foremost: From my research, the Changed Movement isn't a ministry or movement of Bethel Church itself, but rather a project headed by two of the *many* pastors that currently work for Bethel Church. Furthermore, Bethel Church doesn't even list or mention any overt support for this "Movement" on their website navigation and site structure, and general searching for it with their search tool failed to yield any results. Since this particular Wikipedia article is specifically about the Bethel church/organization, the organization is supposed to be the focus here.

- The main website for the Changed Movement doesn't seem to list or reference Bethel Church either, except in the pastor bio(s). It seems to be a separately managed effort (even if the Bethel organization has supported it somehow in the past).

- Many churches of various denominations have viewpoints that align with the Changed Movement. Bethel as an organization isn't exclusive in this way.

Based on all of this, this article on Bethel Church is not the appropriate repository for information on the Changed Movement. Perhaps it is appropriate for Rayknee to make a standalone article on Wikipedia for the Changed Movement, containing the references and information. Then a link from the Bethel article could be made with wording such as: "Two of the pastors working at Bethel Church launched the 'Changed Movement' after their conversion ..." FCGreg (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@FCGreg: I would agree with you if that were true but Changed Movement is very much a ministry of Bethel Church, alongside a very similar ministry "Equipped to love". Bethel Church does list their overt support for the movement (eg. [1] and [2]) - and otherwise wouldn't be defending it after much criticism. After a significant backlash of the ministry it might no longer be prominently shown on the main website but that does not change the fact that it remains Bethel's ministry. Furthermore, you might have missed this but CHANGED Movement is listed on Bethel's official website under ministries ([3]). Below are various extracts from the media clearly showing that Changed Movement remains Bethel's ministry:

• "Recently, Bethel Church launched its #OnceGay CHANGED movement", Thoughts Inside Digital [4]
• An article from CBN from last month shared by EtL: Ken is the co-founder of two ministries of Bethel Church in Redding, CA. Equipped to Love seeks to lovingly, clearly show the truth of Biblically-defined sexuality to the LGBTQ community. (...) And the CHANGED Movement is a support group for those who no longer identify as LGBTQ. [5]

Many churches might have similar viewpoints, but I doubt many have multiple ex-gay ministries - and besides, that does not mean Bethel's theology on viewpoint on LGBTQ should not be included. Bethel is non-denominational so the reader has no way of knowing or guessing what they believe.

Considering we have direct media quotes confirming that it is indeed Bethel's ministry I think it very much deserves inclusion as much as other ministries. I look forward to hearing from you. Rayknee (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I've watched the edits and reverts here, and my comment is that we should be using Independent Sources WP:IS here, NOT the church's website or their promotional materials or the CHANGED movements's self-published material...because that leads to Original Research WP:OR (Rayknee, please read this policy) about what the church is/isnot doing. We should just say that Reliable Sources say.

Some of the the edits by user Rayknee do include sources: religionnews.com, christianpost.com, and cbn.com, and if these mention Bethel, than they are relevant; though I generally feel that about one sentence per source seems reasonable and not UNDUE, though sometimes maybe a whole paragraph could be due, depending on the depth of coverage in the source. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The volume of discussion was my primary concern, and I assumed good faith when I was told that the church supported the group. I was dismayed earlier today when I read that this is not the case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Avatar317: I only quoted Bethel's website because @FCGreg: said that it doesn't include CHANGED Movement (I understand that it is quite tricky to find and easy to miss). @Walter Görlitz: Where did you read that Bethel does *not* support CHANGED? I have provided multiple sources stating that not only does Bethel support it but that it is one of their ministries (that they have been promoting since it started in 2019). CHANGED Movement has received a lot of media coverage so I feel like removing all my edits is uncalled for - the current format says nothing about the founders or their beliefs, does not mention their stance on the Equality Act or their support for conversion therapies (in fact it now looks like they are against them). Bethel's views on transgender people are now completely omitted too. If it were just an independent organization I would completely agree that CHANGED should be a separate article - but it is not independent, it is part of Bethel. CHANGED even speaks *on behalf* of the church. Rayknee (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Above: "the Changed Movement isn't a ministry or movement of Bethel Church itself, but rather a project headed by two of the *many* pastors that currently work for Bethel Church". The easy solution would be to provide a page on the official Bethel site that lists it. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22CHANGED+Movement%22+site%3Abethel.com shows 3 hits, but as mentioned above, it is in relation to the staff who helped found it and two book sources. I would expect that if it were an actual ministry of the church it would have a page somewhere, most likely under https://www.bethel.com/ministries/ the way https://www.bethel.com/ministries/desilva-ministries/ and https://www.bethel.com/ministries/moral-revolution/ do. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=Bethel+site%3Achangedmovement.com has more hits, and are the inverse: these people work at Bethel, but nowhere does it claim it is one of their ministries. So explain again why it should be here when there is only an affiliation through two employees of the church? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: And what's the source for that quote? Secondary sources like CBN (which were by the way also shared by CHANGED) clearly state that CHANGED is a ministry of Bethel, as shown in the the sources I quoted. Not all ministries are listed under https://www.bethel.com/ministries/ (for example Equipped to Love is Bethel's ministry but isn't listed there either) and from what @Avatar317: said we should not be relying primarily on Bethel's website anyway. We have reputable sources (shared also by CHANGED themselves) stating that they are Bethel's ministry. We also have at least one source where CHANGED has spoken on behalf of Bethel. They are very much an integral part of Bethel and portraying them as independent is misleading. Rayknee (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I support the way the CHANGED movement is covered in this article NOW, withOUT Raynees recent edits; there are two Independent Sources which support the two paragraphs.

However, Rayknee is correct about the CBN source. This one Reliable Source calls it a ministry. So we could change the word "organization" to "ministry" with the CBN source.

But that still doesn't mean that we should be using Ken or Elizabeth's tweets, instagrams, or YouTube videos as sources UNLESS they are mentioned in Independent Sources.---Avatar317^(talk) 22:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

And, now that I look, the ChristianPost calls it a "minstry" twice: "An ​article​ at “The Pulpit and Pen” criticizes the CHANGED website for not using the words “sin” or “repentance,” arguing that the ministry..." and " Others will take issue with the fact the CHANGED is treating same-sex attraction as a potential option when it’s clearly a sin. And for those for whom this ministry is exactly what they needed to hear, CHANGED will probably serve its purpose." ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Avatar317: Exactly - it is Bethel's ministry and the Wikipedia article makes it seem like it's not. None of my article edits that were removed were based on tweets or instagram. A YouTube video that was posted from an official channel of the ministry is reputable, and official. Other Wikipedia articles often quote official YouTube or social media channels when that is relevant. Why do you think transgender issues or Equality Act stance should not be included? Or do you think they should be? Also don't you find it misleading that the article states that CHANGED does not use the term "conversion therapy"? That seems to imply that CHANGED are critical of conversion therapy when in reality they are lobbying against any legislation banning it (and encouraging their followers/viewers to do the same - and doing that while speaking on behalf of the entire church) and celebrating any ruling that favours conversion therapy. Also, I don't believe it is fair to omit the fact the founders identify as ex/once gay/lesbian - that is a very basic and relevant piece of information in this context. Rayknee (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Rayknee: As a new editor, I understand that you think or believe that certain issues/topics SHOULD be covered; but that's not what Wikipedia policy says. In order to not have every issue covered that every editor thinks should be covered and thereby providing incredible detail about subjects that some editors are interested in but that the average public may not care at all about, we have guidelines which say that to avoid WP:UNDUE coverage of a topic, we must cover the topic as Independent Sources do. Please read through the areas of that policy, especially around: Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Why_independent_sources_are_required - If newspapers cover Bethel's legislation lobbying or other activity than it can be mentioned. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

And by the way, BSSM has seven paragraphs - I don't think the volume of my edits is really large in comparison, especially considering that CM is not just an affiliation or an independent organization, but Bethel's ministry that has been officially promoted by Bethel multiple times. Rayknee (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 1) Please stop pinging me (and probably anyone else ivolved in this discussion). This article and its talk page are on my watchlist so I will see your comments and respond to them in order. When you ping me and I see what created the alert, it's treated like I've seen it and I may not be able to respond. 2) While you're reading, please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. The good practices for talk pages section's third bullet point is "Read before commenting: Familiarizing yourself with a discussion before participating makes it easier to build consensus." I am quoting another editor here. 3) One source making an substantiated claim. The sources do not support the claim. Now on the other hand, https://religionnews.com/2019/09/12/even-as-conversion-therapy-is-widely-discredited-a-new-oncegay-movement-makes-a-comeback/ states "Bethel Church, Woning said, does not contribute financially to the Changed effort, though it does pay their salaries. The group does not have nonprofit status and is housed in the Moral Revolution offices, an affiliate of Bethel, Williams said." So they are not affiliated according to that source. https://www.christianpost.com/voice/bethel-churchs-recent-lgbt-controversy-whats-the-real-story.html claims the association was closer, but that is clearly no longer the case. That is the best that can be said. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, I do familiarize myself with the entire discussion before responding which is why I was surprised you took another person's statement at face value, without checking what sources support their claim. We have a very recent source (from last month) which, as noted by Avatar317, clearly states it is Bethel's ministry - the article from 2019 that you quoted does not deny the fact that CHANGED is Bethel's ministry, only that Bethel does not contribute to their "effort" (whatever that means - they contribute to their salaries). Rayknee (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Rayknee & @Walter Görlitz: Ministry or not?: The point of Wikipedia's RS and OR policies are so that we can resolve our arguments by us NOT being the people who decide these things...we say what Reliable Sources say. If RS's are split, then we would say that "some have classified it as a ministry", or something like that.

So far we have two RS's that say ministry, and the ReligionNews says vaguely associated (NOT ministry)....do we have any more with different characterizations?---Avatar317^(talk) 23:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

STOP LINKING ME AS WELL.

You're surprised I assumed good faith of another editor but not when I do so for you? I took your statement at face value when you made it. I took the other editor's at face value because it was clearly empirical. I then turned around and showed you the searches. They demonstrate that the other editor's claims were accurate. As an SPA, you've lost my trust. Do not mention my name, link my account or ping me to this discussion again except to apologize for your implication that I was acting in bad faith, or to say you're leaving. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, wow, that escalated quickly. I never said I am surprised you assumed good faith of another editor, I am just surprised that you did not look at the sources (had you done so, you probably wouldn't have been "dismayed") and that you accused me of not having read the discussion. I do assume you have good faith, I am simply baffled by your reactions. You did not have to take any of my statements at face value because all of them were sourced. I am surprised that someone who I feel attacks me from the very first moment I joined Wikipedia, accuses me after a few edits of being an untrustworthy "SPA" and interrogates me why I edit the article and "why now" is now expecting an apology, rather than offering one. Certainly not the atmosphere I expected when I signed up. All I want is for the articles to be objective and not misleading (and unfortunately right now I feel the section on CHANGED Movement is not meeting these criteria because it omits many important facts I mentioned above). I spent a lot of my free time looking for reliable sources to make sure this section is well written and up-to-date and I would rather focus on that rather than defending myself against personal attacks. Man, please calm down. Rayknee (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

It did? You do not bother to read anything. While you did not state that you were surprised, you implied it. I am simply baffled by your iunability to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community. Stop pushing your agenda on Wikipedia. Find a nice blog for yourself and until you learn the ropes, stop editing here. Good bye. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Now I do not bother to read anything and am unable to be productive (but somehow I am still finding numerous reliable sources to improve the article) and apparently have some agenda? What agenda, pray tell? :D Thank you for my daily dose of bullying, much appreciated. Rayknee (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Terribly sorry you're feeling bullied. I had no intention of bullying you. I am simply tired of your PoV pushing and ignoring the patently obvious. Again. you're welcome to contribute constructively, but I'm not seeing that. Oh, and thank you for not pinging or linking me in your last diatribe. Now, would you mind acknowledging that there is a people connection, and only one source (that I see) links CHANGED directly to this church. The church has clearly distanced themselves from it, but you don't seem to accept that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Return to the question and added content

First, let me state that I fully believe that conversion therapy has no basis in fact and is dangerous. I in no way support the concept nor think it is advisable for anyone to engage in attempting to be "converted" nor should no reasonable person or organization attempt to promote it in any way, shape or form. That, however, is not what the problem is here.

Second, I pushed back too hard and again apologize for my behaviour.

I would like to focus on the content now.

These are the sources that existed prior to Rayknee's edits

• Shimron, Yonat (September 12, 2019). "In some Christian circles, a new #oncegay movement makes a comeback". Religion News Service. Retrieved December 29, 2019.
• Royster, Hayden (September 26, 2019). "Bethel Church's recent LGBT controversy: What's the real story?". The Christian Post. Archived from the original on September 27, 2019. Retrieved December 29, 2019.

Sources that were added by Rayknee

• Equality Act Red Flags - What You Need To Know, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK4-C_8n2fE, date of access: 2021-06-21
  • This is posted by CHANGED Movement and not by the church on which the reference appeared.
• Bethel Store, https://shop.bethel.com/search?q=homosexuality, date of access: 2021-06-21
  • Four items out of how many sold at the store? They are not actively promoting them. The one title must be searched for.
  • It is not unlike the content from other Christian booksellers who offer similar titles: https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/easy_find?Ntt=homosexuality
• Final Panel, LGBT Survivors, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VjuD63fn5c, date of access: 2021-06-21
  • At RuthInstitute. Woning speaking on behalf of the CHANGED Movement, not the church.
• Ken William's Once Gay Testimony | CHANGED Movement, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAblzx2G-s0, date of access: 2021-06-21
  • Also posted by CHANGED Movement and not by the church.
• Woning, E. Is there a better way forward?, https://changedmovement.com/a-better-way-forward, date of access: 2021-06-21
  • Posted on the CHANGED Movement website, not the church's

In short, we have an attempted conflation of the two topics resulting in undue emphasis of this topic on the church, which has apparently attempted to distance itself from this movement. The two points of interaction are that a pastor (read: employee) at the church is actively involved in this "movement". The church sells some material on the topic, but does not actuively promote those works on their website. They may or may not promote it in live services or via in-session counselling.

I agree that the CHANGED Movement should probably have its own article but these additional sources are not enough to sustain a stand-alone article. Conversely, the aditional coverage adds nothing of relevance about the church in this article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, Rayknee you have written on several occasions that the CHANGED Movement is a ministry of Bethel Church [6] and [7]. Avatar317 claims that "CBN" supports that claim. I don't see that source above. Could you please share it?

No one has attempted to refute that the church website only mentions their supposed ministry three times, https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22CHANGED+Movement%22+site%3Abethel.com and these entries are only in relation to the staff who helped found it and two book sources. It is not listed in their sanctioned ministries: https://www.bethel.com/ministries/. The movement's website also mentions Bethel https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=Bethel+site%3Achangedmovement.com primarily in the capacity of "these people work at Bethel" and similar, but nowhere does it claim it is one of their ministries. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. After all the unpleasantness yesterday I forgot my password (this is my new account - maybe the password will come back to me, I wish I'd written it down). @Walter Görlitz, if you look at the discussion not only did I provide the link to the CBN article, but also quoted it. Just in case you missed it, here it is again: https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2021/may/the-journey-out-porn-and-bullying-fueled-gay-feelings-until-christs-love-healed-his-heart . By the way, this is the most recent article we have so far and it calls the CHANGED Movement Bethel's ministry.

There is nothing to suggest that the church has distanced itself from the ministry if in the very recent articles it is called Bethel's ministry (likely because of the information provided to the author by the founders). I don't think we can be guessing church's intentions based on how many or few times they mention their ministry on their official page. Some churches have no websites at all, some have websites but do not mention their ministries or only mention a select few. It is quite understandable that Bethel might want to minimize negative press coverage but there is absolutely nothing to suggest that they have distanced themselves from the ministry - had they done so, they would no longer be a ministry and described as such as recently as last month. I do not agree that the church has distanced itself from the ministry - in fact if you look at statements made by other senior pastors/leaders like Johnson or Vallotton, you can see that not only do they share their views on LGBT+ but that they (in this instance Vallotton) has also spoken against the Equality Act. This year CHANGED Movement has at least on one occasion spoken on behalf of the entire church. None of that shows that Bethel are distancing themselves from the CHANGED ministry in any way. CHANGED has received a lot of media coverage (both positive and negative) but the way this section is currently written is very selective, does not include recent developments and is misleading (e.g. the Wiki article mentions that the pastors do not use the term "conversion therapy" - what's the point of that statement? It would be fair to add that while they might not use those specific words they are lobbying against legislation that would ban conversion therapy and publicly celebrate any rulings in favour of conversion therapy). If the founder has written books on the topic, it also seems normal to include them. The fact that both founders identify as ex-LGBT/once-LGBT is an incredibly basic piece of information mentioned in multiple sources but that was removed from the article. Raykneee (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with all of Walter's summaries of the bulleted sources. I see the point that that church doesn't call it their ministry, but I see that as irrelevant since we follow what RS and IS sources say. Here is a WashingtonPost article from 2019 calling it a ministry: [8] : "But Bethel Church, a mega-congregation based in Redding, Calif., with a popular worldwide worship music brand, may be trying to fill that void. It recently launched its “Changed” ministry ..."

Maybe the better solution is to break CHANGED into its own article, with one sentence in the Bethel article talking about how it is one of their ministries started by their people with the pay/building use info, and what it is, but with the rest of the info (and the stuff you'd like to add, Rayknee) into a new "CHANGED (ex-gay ministry)" article. (and since RS call it an "ex-gay" ministry, that's what we can call it.)

It may be a small article, but that's ok...I started an article on a subject that I thought would get more media attention, but hasn't: Sensorvault...and I don't see a better place to put that content, (CHANGED) which in my opinion has enough coverage to be Notable WP:N. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Avatar317, could you please address my points regarding some of the very basic information missing (1. The opposition to the Equality Act, 2. The fact the founders are ex-LGBT, and 3. that they oppose legislation banning conversion therapies? These are three very basic facts that should be included, especially since some very minor (and quite frankly irrelevant) facts are included (like the fact the pastors do not use the term "conversion therapy" - which seems a bit misleading anyway). I am more than happy to write a more thorough article (although never done so, so would appreciate if somehow could please look at my draft) - but even with a separate article the short summary of the movement in the Bethel article should include those basic facts and recent developments - so far the only sources are from 2019 when the movement was founded. My suggestion would be to reorganise that section - create a heading "LGBT-focused ministries" and then have a short summary (a few paragraphs each) of both ministries of Bethel - CHANGED Movement and Equipped to Love (which is completely missing from the article). What do you think? Raykneee (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Just a note on reliable sources. The RSN CBN article does not have an author and so does not seem to meet the criteria for RS. That cannot be said for the Washington Post piece. Still confused why they would not list the ministry on their website if it was really theirs. It was not even there at the time of that article's publication https://web.archive.org/web/20191225230947/https://www.bethel.com/ministries/ . WP:RSN does have a lot of questions about the reliability of Washington Post, but I won't traverse that line of thinking. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I am confused too (although I suspect why that is the case), but there are other Bethel's ministries not listed on the page, and some senior leaders not listed on the leaders page - so it's not a unique situation. That page even lists some ministries that are "our friends", not ministries. I don't think a poorly designed or incomplete website should be the reason not to update the section with more recent information that has appeared in the media since 2019, especially since it now contains a few misleading statements. Raykneee (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Rayknee: your 1,2,3 points can all be included if those facts are mentioned in any of the three Reliable Sources we have (Religion News Service, Christian Post, and WashingtonPost). Walter, I think you meant *CBN* doesn't have an author. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

No they can't and shouldn't be. It conflates the content.

The fact that the church pays the salaries of the pastors for their pastoral work in the context of the ministries of the church has no bearing on this external ministry. It would be like saying the Bill and Linda Gates Foundation is a branch of Microsoft Corporation because the two founders draw (or at least drew) a salary from the latter. That claim is WP:OR. There is no reliable source that supports this claim.

Similarly no support for the claim that the church promotes it, unless the fact that a book is in their book store (which I believe I addressed very clearly above).

No support for the claim that they are housed in offices of another one of Bethel's ministries.

Yes, CBN has no author. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not just about the books. Many secondary sources clearly state CHANGED is Bethel's ministry so the comparison to Gates Foundation isn't really relevant here. As for the claim that they are housed in offices of another one of Bethel's ministries - I did not add this claim but it is supported by the article from Religion News. There's no conflation here. Bethel promoted CHANGED as early as 2019 for which they were heavily criticised in the media (including Christian media). As recently as April 2021 Bethel's senior associate leader Kris Vallotton promoted CHANGED. Bethel has at least three ministries with a clear focus on sexuality/conversion therapies/LGBT+: CHANGED Movement, Equipped to Love and Moral Revolution. They are very much active and part of the church and there is absolutely nothing that suggests Bethel have distanced themselves from CHANGED. Raykneee (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Many? You have supplied one reliable source and one other source. The evidence is still that it is not listed as one of their ministries. That by itself is enough to prove that they have distanced themselves from it.

As for the Gates Foundation, it is exactly the same as you have zero, none, no sources that claim that because the two pastors are on-staff at Bethel that there is some sort of payment to them to run this other, external (as far as the church is concerned) ministry.

How did Vallotton promote this third-party ministry? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not enough to prove that they have distanced themselves from it, because as you have noted yourself they were never listed on that page to begin with (the same is true for other ministries too). They are however mentioned on Bethel's website and listed on pages of other ministries of Bethel, like Moral Revolution. Vallotton promoted them by giving them a platform to express their opposition to the Equality Ask and interviewing Elizabeth Woning as a co-founder of CHANGED. A few more sources: an interview with Elizabeth Woning where she is credited as Co-founder of Bethel's Changed Movement ([9]). An article from "Church Leaders": Woning says they are trying to create a safe space at Bethel )[10]). I understand you are adamantly maintaining that CHANGED Movement is somehow "external" but it really isn't. Raykneee (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course it is enough to prove they have distanced themselves. You claimed that they promote it, yet there is no evidence of that promotion on the website. The YouTube video is not a RS. The interview itself is not clear. Are they trying to create a safe place at Bethel as paid ministers of the church or through this external ministry? It's easy to conflate the two, but I don't think there's enough evidence, particularly from the church itself, to support the claim that this is their ministry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

If they have distanced themselves, that would imply at some point they were closer? If so - when and why do you think so? The interview is very clear, it says Bethel's CHANGED Movement. And since we are giving priority to secondary sources, whether this particular page of Bethel's website lists them as a ministry or not seems irrelevant. If you want to learn more about it, there is also an interview with Kevin Garcia, a survivor of gay conversion therapy at Exodus International and, again, 'Bethel's Changed Movement - [11]. Raykneee (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe that they were ever a ministry of Bethel. They list their ministries on their website (as most modern churches do). I showed that it was never there so I do not understand how these reliable sources came to that conclusion. I was simply assuming that they may be correct, however, there is no evidence that they are. Anyone can claim it this church's ministry. They are not reliable sources though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I suspect the reliable sources arrived at that conclusion by asking the co-founders about the CHANGED's status when interviewing them. If that were incorrect, I suspect CHANGED or Bethel would ask for a correction - they did not, but instead shared many of those articles with their followers. If a ministry generates a lot of negatives press coverage, it is not surprising they are not directly listed on that church's website but instead referenced on other subpages and ministries' websites. I have seen that very same strategy with other churches (particularly those that have ex-gay ministries but prefer not to list them on the website). You said you think they have distanced themselves - so at what point were they closer and why? Raykneee (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

And there we have assumptions again. Occam's razor would suggest that the reason it's not listed is not because it has generated negative press (even before it had time to generate any press) but that it is not an official church ministry but rather, it's an external endeavour run by two pastors from the church.

Plenty of pastors in many, many churches are only part-time and their activity outside the church would not be considered a ministry of the church that they also work for, but it could get them fired if it were contrary to the church's code of ethics or similar. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

You still have not answered my question when the church was closer to the CHANGED since you claim it has distanced itself from it. You are making assumptions about the alleged distancing and have not provided any evidence for it (the fact that they are not listed on that page does not mean they have distanced themselves, at best that they were always distant - but we know that is not true from the media coverage and interviews). After much more reading I think I have disentangled the structure of those ministries/support groups/netoworks. CHANGED Movement belongs to Equipped to Love - so it is part of this ministry (which is Bethel's ministry) - from CHANGED Movement's website - CHANGED is led by Equipped to Love, a ministry that was born out of the passion to find safe places for men and women to pursue God wholeheartedly, with Biblical conviction, when they experience same sex attraction or gender identity issues. So with that in mind I think the best solution would be to have a major heading as Equipped to Love, with a subheading "CHANGED Movement" to reflect that CHANGED is part of the EtL ministry. Raykneee (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Getting closer, https://www.bethel.com/ministries/moral-revolution/ is a ministry, but Equipped to Love is not listed as a Bethel ministry either. Their about page does show strong ties to them https://www.equippedtolove.com/about/ . The best course of action is to remove all of the WP:SYNTH content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I am asking you again - when do you think Bethel was closer to CHANGED since you claim that they have distanced themselves from it? Equipped to Love is not listed on this page, but that does not mean it isn't Bethel's ministry. Secondary sources state that it is Bethel's ministry and Equipped to Love state that themselves on their official YouTube channel. Whatever the semantics, it is part of the church's operations and their activities are strongly supported by the church and its ministries. And yes, Moral Revolution is the ministry that is housing Equipped to Love. Raykneee (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The evidence from the church's website shows it was never a ministry. I was being gracious and accepting your point. Whatever the understanding that the secondary sources are working from, it is not supported by the church itself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven’t had time for editing here for several days; I see much has happened since then. My previous opinion about WP:UNDUE hasn’t changed, and I just have a few thoughts to summarize:

@Raykneee I appreciate you want to contribute here on Wikipedia. That is a good thing, but it is very important that the standards are followed, such as WP:NPOV and the other guidelines already discussed. Otherwise people start to believe Wikipedia is an advocation platform instead of an online encyclopedia.

- Editors on Wikipedia are not “detectives.” We aren’t supposed to be sleuthing details about organizations, their structure, or intentions. The information is either provided by trusted outside sources, or it isn’t. It’s that simple.

- I believe the support for adding information about the Changed Movement in this article is slim. Furthermore, I believe the information already inserted should be trimmed down or possibly moved to its own page. I'll look further into that later, but I didn't want to short-circuit the active discussion happening here. FCGreg (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@FCGreg, I do appreciate your point, but I am not doing any detective work - reliable sources call it Bethel's ministry, it was Walter Görlitz who claimed the secondary sourced must be wrong because he can't find that particular ministry on a particular page of Bethel's website and that is when I started looking at even more sources that confirm CHANGED Movement is indeed part of Bethel's ministry (Equipped to Love) which is heavily supported (and housed) by Moral Revolution, another ministry of Bethel. @Avatar317 agreed with me on the inclusion of those three basic facts. All of them are very important for the topic and appear in multiple sources. I have no intention of pushing any agenda or advocacy here, but that fact remains that Bethel and its ministries have received considerable media attention for their ex-gay ministries and lobbying, so to omit that from Bethel's page would be a bit dishonest. Raykneee (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

There's a whole lot of SYNTH going on though. Ergo, readers have to do detective work. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Raykneee I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't be included. However, it needs to be included carefully and within guidelines. Walter Görlitz is correct that if it isn't added carefully and sourced properly, this can lead to problems with WP:SYNTH in addition to the other issues. Please take a look at that info (part of the Original Sources policy) to evaluate your additions further. Thanks FCGreg (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@FCGreg Could you please explain to me which passages that I added are not sourced properly? I have sourced everything (secondary sources) so I don't believe I have done any original research, and from reading the article I can't see how the information I added might be against the policy - so would really appreciate some clarification. Raykneee (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

We could try to clear up this "ministry or not-ministry" question by saying that if a source (a Reliable Secondary Source) uses the word Bethel in their article, then any statements in that source are relevant to this article; if not then that content could be used in a (separate, to-be-created) article on CHANGED.---Avatar317^(talk) 23:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Avatar317 To avoid any confusion or potential inaccuracy I did not describe CHANGED as either ministry or organization. Most of the references use the word Bethel in the article and when they do not, they could likely be swapped for articles that do (maybe with the exception of direct quotes). Raykneee (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

There are aspects of the conversation above that I find shocking and disturbing. Wikipedia:Single-purpose account is an essay that does not have the status of a policy or a guideline, although it contains some useful advice. That essay says New editors have the right to be treated with respect and civility; but they should also be aware that, while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards. Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly and civilly, and to not bite newcomers. Remember that every editor on Wikipedia was new at some point. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits.

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers is an accepted behavioral guideline, and it says: We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with Wikipedia's markup language and its myriad of policies, guidelines, and community standards when they start editing. And that behavioral guideline goes on to say Communicating with newcomers patiently and thoroughly is integral to ensure they stay on Wikipedia and ultimately contribute in a constructive manner. Rayknee is a very new editor with only 26 edits as I write. So far, they are focused on one topic area but they are very willing to discuss and have expressed an interest in and a commitment to learning more about how best to edit Wikipedia. When their early edits were challenged, they started commenting on the article talk page, which is exactly what we hope for from new editors. Walter Görlitz is a highly experienced editor with nearly 17 years of experience and almost 281,000 edits. Walter Görlitz ought to be thoroughly familiar with our behavioral guidelines, and as an experienced editor and a self-declared Christian, should not be attacking or demeaning or humiliating a new editor with comments like As an SPA, you've lost my trust. Do not mention my name, link my account or ping me to this discussion again except to apologize for your implication that I was acting in bad faith, or to say you're leaving.

That is an astounding assumption of bad faith about a new editor, Walter Görlitz. Please consider this a formal warning that your current behavior is completely unacceptable, and that if you continue, you will be blocked. Rayknee has every right to edit on this church and their stance on LGBTQ issues, as long as their edits comply with polices and guidelines. On the other hand, you have no right to treat this new editor with contempt. Stop this behavior immediately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder Cullen328. I have no intention to stop pushing back on the lack of WP:NPOV on this or any other editor. I will continue to question this and any other editor's motives while assuming good faith, and will call out the errors any editor makes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

No, you have gone way over the line in your interactions with this new editor, Walter Görlitz. You are well aware from experience what the consequences of this misbehavior may well be. So, adjust your behavior accordingly if you want to continue editing. This is deeply disappointing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)