Talk:Every Nation Churches & Ministries/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Who is who

Just to clarify who is who.

• Thelma Bowlen is a member of Every Nation, this is a personal account.
• Every Nation is an official account representing the institution. Thelma runs this account
• Misha Arturovich is a missionary in Every Nation. Misha Arturovich
• Blueboy96 is a former member
• David L Rattigan is X something like EN (feel free to fill in). He was a light contributor for about a year and then a month ago picked up the pace.
• jbolden1517 is the mediation cabal mediator

I'm the mediator requested Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-12 Every Nation. Let me give you some background about me [jbolden1517] as it pertains to neutrality:

1. I am a Jewish atheist and it appears both sides are evangelical Christians
2. I have no experience with Every Nation, Charismatic churches or Maranatha
3. I am knowledgeable about Christian doctrine and theology though that appears irrelevant to this dispute.

[original of questions deleted]

Please correct but I just want to make sure everyone knows everyone else's role/positions.

Fully Resolved issues

I'm going to use this as a temporary holding place as issues get resolved. Eventually this will get moved to an archive page.

head quarters

Blueboy: No objection to the HQ--the main headquarters is in Brentwood, though. I can see where you can say it's Nashville, though--the two cities are practically next door to each other.

The international head offices of Every Nation are located in Manila, Philippines and Nashville, Tennessee. Thelma Bowlen 09:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Blueboy, I assume there is no objection to this one? jbolden1517^Talk 19:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Famous People

BB - As far as the arts and entertainment ties go ... in looking at it, it's a bit too much to say that it has a vision for reaching famous people. However, Champions for Christ is one of Every Nation's most high-profile ministries. Also, several prominent Christians attend EN churches. For instance, Stormie Omartian (sp?), Out of Eden and the Newsboys call Bethel World Outreach Center (Every Nation's flagship church) their home church. Former NHL player Adam Burt (who played for the Canes when I was at Carolina) is associate pastor of Every Nation New York.

While it is true that several leaders of EN are based in Nashville, LA and New York, it is untrue that the reason is because of the arts and entertainment industry. Rather, it is due to the fact that this is either where they were already living (Nashville and LA) , responded to a need to plant a church (New York), or because our Head Office was already there (Nashville). Furthermore, key EN leaders also live in South Africa, Nigeria, Philippines, the Middle East, Canada and the United Kingdom.Misha Arturovich 09:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

OK it sounds to me like you are agreeing they aren't doing anything all that unique with famous people. I'm going to be a little on the bold side. If I've gone to far let me know.

• removed In addition, Every Nation places an emphasis on being 'relevant' to contemporary culture. It has a vision especially for changing the arts and entertainment industries, which have long been the nearly exclusive territory of non-Christians. Major leaders in the movement have therefore based their activity in
• moved Nashville and Los Angeles, and more recently New York.
• added Furthermore, key EN leaders also live in South Africa, Nigeria, Philippines, the Middle East, Canada and the United Kingdom.
• removed . Broocks and his colleagues had a particular gift for reaching famous people, and opening doors. Bestselling author Stephen Mansfield, for example, joined the movement around 2004 after receiving ministry from Broocks. The manager, and some members of the Newsboys, one of the largest acts in Christian Contemporary Music, have also recently working with Broocks and another prominent Every Nation leader, Jim Laffoon. In addition, Broocks met Ariel Sharon in 2005 and gained entree into Jerusalem through the influence of the deputy acting mayor. [1]

Please feel free to edit that paragraph for style. I want to make that paragraph an open edit to see how it works.

Edits

Proposed edits of Core Values

Lordship. Lordship means that once a person receives the free gift of salvation through repentance, he or she seeks to know Christ and follow Him in every area of his or her life. This means pursuing Christ and a life that is Christ-centered. (Colossians 2:6)

Discipleship. All christians are called to be disciples, and as described in Matthew 4:19, a disciple is someone who follows Jesus and helps others to come to know Jesus and follow Him.

Evangelism. To evangelise means to be a messenger of Good. Jesus’ Great Commission is to bring the good news of the Gospel to all nations. (Matthew 28:18-20)

Leadership Development. Every Nation believes that every member is a minister of the Gospel. Through Every Nation’s two year Bible school, local church members are equipped to be leaders who can minister to their communities, their campuses, their businesses and their families. (2 Timothy 2:2)

Family. After a person’s relationship with God, the next highest priority in a person’s life is his or her family. Every Nation does not believe in sacrificing marriages or children on the altars of temporal success. (Psalm 127:1-3) Misha Arturovich 09:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Misha but here's where I say you just crossed over to advocacy. If they are core values, what makes them core? What makes them different than other churches that don't hold those doctrines? What mainstream Christian would disagree with any of the above? If they are just slogans then we call them that, "Every Nation has a series of 5 slogans referred to as the 'Core Values'..." If they have real content then I'd like to see what it is. For example the description of discipleship below is (from a style perspective, I"m not asserting accuracy) what I'm looking for. It makes it clear what the slogan means and what makes it genuinely different. jbolden1517^Talk 02:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Evangelism Every Nation recognizes that many Christian movements, especially Charismatic movements, have lost their emphasis on evangelism, which was the central feature of Christ's mission. Every Nation leader Rice Broocks has even given a new term to Matthew 28:18-20, which has traditionally been called the Great Commission--The Apostolic Mandate. Despite this core emphasis, a large percentage of new Every Nation's members are not truly new converts to Christianity, but those with Christian backgrounds who have received life transforming Christian training.

Evangelism. To evangelise means to be a messenger of Good. Jesus’ Great Commission is to bring the good news of the Gospel to all nations. (Matthew 28:18-20)

This write up is not factual information. Have they surveyed the membership of EN into the hundreds of thousands in 50 nations worldwide? At any rate, this is obviously written from an American bias, since the vast majority of EN’s members in Asia, Africa and South America are new converts, and they constitute the largest percentage of EN’s total membership.Misha Arturovich 09:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Misha, That may very well be true. Is it the case that the American EN is very different in make up than the Asian, African and SA EN and thus maybe we should discuss membership in two separate paragraphs? Now assuming that the quote above were designated as only applying to the US branch/division/collection (still need structure information) of EN would it be true? jbolden1517^Talk 02:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Discipleship is a common Christian term which can mean any number of things, from following up a new believer, to personal training, to radical commitment to Christ, to absolute surrender of your life to another person, as was taught in the Shepherding Movement. Every Nation practice and doctrine reflects the influence of all of these. While Every Nation leaders and members would explicitly disclaim the need to surrender absolutely to another human being, the Every Nation concept of discipleship has definitely included submission to a "discipler", and it is this concept which makes Every Nation practice distinct from standard evangelical practice. In fact, embedded into the entire structure of Every Nation is the centrality of Authority. One should always be in relationship with "a Paul, a Barnabas, and a Timothy" that is someone to whom their life is submitted, someone who is a peer, and someone they are discipling.

Discipleship. All christians are called to be disciples, and as described in Matthew 4:19, a disciple is someone who follows Jesus and helps others to come to know Jesus and follow Him.

This write up of discipleship is not accurate. “Discipleship” as described in the official Every Nation policy regarding Discipleship means “following Jesus and helping others follow Jesus.” (a copy of this policy is contained in the May 2006 Leader Letter on the EN website – add hyperlink). While it is true that submission to a discipler was standard practice in the Shepherding movement, Every Nation rejects this teaching as stated in its Discipleship Policy.

Misha, There is a discipleship policy? Excellent. Is it available on the web? If not is there a book? What is the policy...? jbolden1517^Talk 02:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Family Like the shepherding movement, Every Nation teaches the importance of a minister's investment in his family.

Again, this is an attempt to put a negative slant on this entry by implying that EN is just like the shepherding movement. Every legitimate denomination I know of teaches about the importance of family – this is not unique to the shepherding movement.Misha Arturovich 10:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed I removed "Like the shepherding movement". Blueboy, is there anything genuinely different unique about EN's attitude towards family that isn't shared many Christian, Jewish, Muslim... religious organizations that have married pastors? jbolden1517^Talk 02:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thelma's Replies

Coming soon... my turn to sift and sort... Your patience is appreciated. Thelma Bowlen 04:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem hoping to hear from you Monday. Anyway I moved the Maranatha stuff down and created a structure section. I just put a few lines in the structure section. Feel free to replace it all. I'd like you put that together address what Every Nation is from a financial / membership perspective. What it means to be a member church, who is funding who, doctrinal requirements, disciplinary actions.... jbolden1517^Talk 01:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Will need until the end of this week to post replies. Am currently collating all the information you have requested. Thelma Bowlen 07:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thelma and Misha reply and analysis

Edit for Intro Paragraph

From here on out: top level = article 2nd level = thelma, EN, or mIsha (signed) 3rd level = jbolden (I'll sign)

It is based in Brentwood, Tennessee; a suburb of Nashville.

Several of Every Nation's leaders and ministries have past connections to Maranatha Campus Ministries, a highly controversial Charismatic organization from the 1980s.

The Maranatha issue will be addressed in a paragraph under “Criticism” – ie, this should be addressed in the same way other controversial claims are dealt with in other Wikipedia entries. However, it is unfair to make this the focus throughout the article, in the same way it would be unfair to include in the first paragraph of the entry on Bill Clinton that: “Bill Clinton has had several adulterous affairs...” Every Nation 09:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We are moving the Marantha thing. You address this point yourself so I've removed from the article jbolden1517^Talk 19:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Edits for History Section

Every Nation is a high energy ministry with a strong emphasis on growth. Broocks and his colleagues had a particular gift for reaching famous people, and opening doors. Bestselling author Stephen Mansfield, for example, joined the movement around 2004 after receiving ministry from Broocks. The manager, and some members of the Newsboys, one of the largest acts in Christian Contemporary Music, have also recently working with Broocks and another prominent Every Nation leader, Jim Laffoon. In addition, Broocks met Ariel Sharon in 2005 and gained entree into Jerusalem through the influence of the deputy acting mayor. [1]

This paragraph is misleading and irrelevant – since our goal is to create a great encyclopedia entry, the Newsboys and Ariel Sharon are completely irrelvant to who and what Every Nation is. This makes it sound like Every Nation’s emphasis is on reaching famous people which is not true. Famous people make up probably 0.0001 % of the total membership of Every Nation. Therefore, it is more factual to say that Every Nation reaches people, regardless of whether they are students or athletes, housewives or professionals, rich or poor, etc.Thelma Bowlen 09:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I kind of agree with you, based on summary evaluation. 567,000 best selling book, 780,000th, 243,000th ain't exactly blowing me away. Its not like say Kabbalah Centre in LA. Why don't you propose a complete rewrite of this paragraph? jbolden1517^Talk 20:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Follow up questions

I have a few follow up questions for Thelma and Misha.

1. Thelma and Misha I was kind of shocked by the harsh language regarding Maranatha.
   1. What do you believe they did that was so wrong?
   2. Also can you explain to me what differences in theology, doctrine and practice there is between EN and Maranatha.
2. It sounds like the fact that MSI was the old name for Every Nation is not disputed? Is this correct?
3. 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.

--—Preceding unsigned comment added by jbolden1517 (talk • contribs)

(note these were answered in a later article)

New Apostolic Reformation

I've made some edits on this issue since this is already partial agreement. But

1. Apostolic is going to come up in the doctrine section so this is worth spending some time
2. There are still some issues to resolve
3. This is a fairly good and concrete case of the repudiated but still present issue that underlies the Maranatha issue.

Thelma: Every Nation identifies itself as a leader in the New Apostolic Reformation led by C. Peter Wagner. What wee you objecting to in this line?

Every Nation does not claim, nor has it ever said, that it is a leader in the New Apostolic Reformation. This comment attributes to us something which is simply not true.

Blueboy, you agree with that? And if so, you ok with dropping the comment? If not, what evidence do we have that Every Nation identifies itself in such a way? jbolden1517^Talk 20:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

BlueBoy: While Every Nation itself is not a part of the New Apostolic Reformation, its leaders have covenantal relationships with Wagner, and their theology is very similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboy96 (talk • contribs)

I'm read Thelma's response and while she didn't use the word "conventional". I think she's pretty close. I'm going to introduce some language in the main article which I think reflects this discussion. This one I think is going to be substantially stronger than Thelma was asking for but IMHO is accurate. jbolden1517^Talk 02:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That's where some think Every Nation itself is part of the NAR, given how much it seems everything centers around Broocks, Bonasso and Murrell. Wagner serves as Every Nation Leadership Institute's honorary dean. The reason this is being debated is that there are serious questions about Wagner's theology. See here for a sober discussion of these issues.

What do you mean by "conventional relationships with Wagner", I mean that literally I'm not sure what is meant. But in any case if you agree there aren't part and EN team above agrees I'll pull the comment from the article for now. We can rephrase something weaker and put it back once I understand what you are asserting. I'll throw in a "New Apostolic Reformation" see also but I'm awaiting a justification even for that one. Fair enough?

I would like to appeal for the removal of the 'see also' link to the New Apostolic Reformation. We do not believe this is a true classification and therefore it is not fair for it to be added as a 'see also' link as it indirectly implies that we are part of the New Apostolic Reformation. Thelma Bowlen 08:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the link I couldn't understand the point being made. Either you or the EN team is going to have to slow down and explain this debate to me. jbolden1517^Talk 04:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Every Nation, like other movements in the "New Apostolic Reformation", emphasizes church planting, and actively recruits among existing churches. Through these two methods

While Peter Wagner devoted a chapter to EN in his book, “New Apostolic Churches,” Every Nation does not classify itself as part of the New Apostolic Reformation and no longer affiliates itself with Wagner’s “Apostolic Roundtables” in Colorado Springs. Because EN’s goal is to plant new churches, it does not “actively recruit” existing churches. However, several churches have joined Every Nation because they share the same vision and values for church planting, campus ministry and world missions. Thelma Bowlen 09:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Thelma, OK I want a time line. When did the Wagner make the first statements indicating he believed EN was part of the NAC (New Apostolic Churches)? When did EN make their first statement that they were not part of the movement? Who made the statement. Where. First, when who and where it came from an authoritative source?...
2. Blueboy, what evidence do we have that EN is part of the New Apostolic Reformation?
3. Now as an aside for the ignorant mediator. Why does this matter? I don't understand what's being debated so can one of you fill me in on why this is an issue of contention? jbolden1517^Talk 20:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply re. Peter Wagner and New Apostolic Reformation

1. Thelma, OK I want a time line. When did the Wagner make the first statements indicating he believed EN was part of the NAC (New Apostolic Churches)? When did EN make their first statement that they were not part of the movement? Who made the statement. Where. First, when who and where it came from an authoritative source?...
2. Blueboy, what evidence do we have that EN is part of the New Apostolic Reformation?
3. Now as an aside for the ignorant mediator. Why does this matter? I don't understand what's being debated so can one of you fill me in on why this is an issue of contention? jbolden1517Talk 20:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

For jbolden – I think we can help you out here. Peter Wagner is recognized within much of the evangelical church community as an expert on church growth and missiology. He was also formerly an associate professor on staff with Fuller Theological Seminary, also considered to be a mainstream evangelical seminary. Wagner was the honorary dean of ENLI when he was associated with Fuller, as he was our initial link to Fuller Theological Seminary, which provides masters level accreditation for several of our more advanced ENLI courses. However, when Wagner ceased to be on staff with Fuller, he also ceased to be honorary dean of ENLI. He wrote a book called The New Apostolic Churches, published in 2000. He asked Rice Broocks to write a chapter about EN (then known as Morning Star International), which he did. However, the writing of this book pre-dates the promotion of a “new apostolic reformation” and EN is not and has never claimed to be part of the new apostolic reformation. We have never made an official statement that we are not part of the new apostolic reformation for the same reason that we have never made an official statement that we are not part of the Roman Catholic Church – because we are not. Thelma Bowlen^Talk 09:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

C Peter Wagner on the NAR

Hi again, folks. The mediator invited me to come back and join in the discussion, so here I am.

I can't comment on EN's self-designation, but I have been reading C Peter Wagner's entry on the New Apostolic Reformation in New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (revised edition, ed Stanley M Burgess, Eduard van der Maas, 2003). A few things he says are pertinent to Thelma's response above.

• The NAR began in the 1990s
• Key works cited are from 1997-99
• He describes the book The New Apostolic Churches (2000) as a book "in which 18 leaders in the New Apostolic Reformation describe their movements"

The following things seem clear, then:

1. Wagner regards all those who contributed to the book (including Every Nation, then Morning Star International) as leaders in the New Apostolic Reformation
2. NAR predates the publication of the book by a few years, possibly up to a decade
3. The designation itself (New Apostolic Reformation) dates at least to the publication of the book, possibly before

David L Rattigan 10:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I see Wagner's introduction to The New Apostolic Churches is entitled "The New Apostolic Reformation". Amazon.com "See inside" David L Rattigan 10:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

C Peter Wagner's Churchquake is subtitled How the New Apostolic Reformation Is Shaking up the Church as We Know It, and Chapter 2 is described in the contents thus:

An emerging consensus of some well-known researchers of what we are calling the "New Apostolic Reformation" is reassuring.

This use of the designation NAR dates from 1999. David L Rattigan 10:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Tommy Sirotnak

Now Tom "Big Tommy" Sirotnak assuming this guy is leadership may be a real scandal. I have a few things that need to be clarified. Blueboy these 3 are for you

1) The articles comments about priesthood of the believer make no sense. When I read the reference what I hear instead is a claim of institutional abuse.

I began to see error and abuse in our discipleship philosophy and view of apostolic authority comparative to how other organization operated. Much of it was very similar to what led to the demise of Maranatha Ministries in the late 1980s. I had appealed, on a number of occasions to Rice Broocks and Phil Bonasso to look at these issues of authoritarianism and hyper-submission. The results were that I was label bitter and rebellious. I begged them to look into each individual case and to see if there was any merit to what I was saying. For the most part, it just fell on deaf ears.

I told Rice It was out of my zeal for this MSI that I brought up these various points of observable church abuse or why I would dare question apostolic authority, was that I did not want to see us go through another "Maranatha" split up like when the Wall Street Journal and Christianity Today came after us.

It was not intent to bring you fellow brothers into all this but now that you are, my prayer is that MSI would reform their discipleship tactics and stance on apostolic authority over the local church and its individuals. I stand by this testimony and would be glad to answer any questions or lend any clarification as to what I have said. I am also open for any of feed back you have.

But, I am opposed to the type authority that would exploit its members through control and guilt manipulation, or to propose to know ones destiny better than that individual, or deem the actions of a member as rebellious or unteachable because they don't fit the MSI mold, or to proclaim spiritual superiority of the apostolic board over the local Pastor. I still hold to almost every core value MSI stands for. Only I feel those values have been more biblically aligned and seasoned with grace.

2) I also have some question about whether this guy was every really leadership in EN. He takes about MSI in 2004 and he seems active in the anti cult movement. Other than that I don't see much about him other than a less than distinguished career where I find basically doing school assemblies [2]

3) The "abuse" seems pretty mild to me. OTOH there "abuse" allegations for marantha are similar and you both seem to agree that Marantha is scum so I'll put my own feelings aside here. What exactly is he alleging occurs? jbolden1517^Talk 04:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Just to answer #2. Tommy was not active in the anti-cult movement at all. You will not find him anywhere except on his few frustrated postings on Rick Ross. He was a true MSI/EN lifer. And he was a leader. Not one of the top leaders, but he was a pastor level leader which is still pretty important given how hard it is to get into the inner circles where he moved. He was under Phil Bonasso where the worst control took place, but before the scandal broke and Phil was exposed. He came in and taught some liberating doctrines on the "priesthood of believers" that threatened Phil's regime of control, and generally ran counter to the MSI doctrine, and so Phil had him removed.

Perhaps what we should do is play Steve Murrell's sermon on Discipleship which was preached in Aug/Sep of 2005. Steve comes in to CORRECT the discpileship practice in LA that was WRONG. Now Steve has more authority he's cleaning things up, but the truth about the past should be told not swept under the rug. [User:Anonymou|Anonymou]

If I'm hearing you correctly you are saying that Tommy disagreed with the official doctrines of his church, preached from their pulpits about that and was fired for it. That happens in most churches. For it to be a scandal they have to violate stated policy. How come you aren't a Unitarian or something? You seem to be basically a very liberal christian why did you pick a hard core right wing conservative church? jbolden1517^Talk 05:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not it. He was fired for doing somethign against the doctrine which they claim they never practiced! Anonymou 05:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a liberal Christian at all but Blue is. I'm just as right wing as EN. You're not a Christian, right? I find it funny that you seem to be taking sides with a Christian organization with deceptive practices. Anonymou 05:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite of Wagner paragraph

Can I suggest a rewrite of the Wagner paragraph? It currently reads:

The New Apostolic Reformation is a movement founded by Peter Wagner who is an expert on expert on church growth and missiology. He considers Every Nation to be an example of a New Apostolic Church and Rice Broocks (a leader in Every Nation) authored a chapter in one of the key books The New Apostolic Churches a key book in the movement. There are some doctrinal differences between Every Nation and Wagner and In spite of the strong unofficial ties and similarity in approach; Every Nation does not consider itself part of the New Apostolic Reformation and has no official ties with Wagner.

Here's my suggestion:

Missiologist C. Peter Wagner identifies Every Nation as part of the New Apostolic Reformation, a movement in charismatic and evangelical Christianity to restore the offices of apostles and prophets to the Church and its leadership. Rice Broocks authored a chapter about Every Nation in Wagner's The New Apostolic Churches, a key book about the movement. However, despite some similarities, Every Nation does not regard itself as part of the movement, and is no longer officially tied to Wagner.

This just explains a bit more about what the NAR is, and gives a more accurate reflection of Wagner and his relationship to the movement. He is not the founder, but identified (and supported) what he saw as a trend. Also made clearer that Every Nation was once affiliated with Wagner in some way (perhaps that needs more explanation?). Not sure about the "doctrinal differences" - what are the differences? And as NAR seems to be a loose movement rather than a formal organization, does it have "essential" doctrines as such? David L Rattigan 12:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I like your first sentence change and that's going in. Why drop the "church growth" reference? Thelma has argued there was never any association between EN/MSI and Wagner. Do you have any evidence that MSI/EN were ever institutionally part of this movement rather than one leader supported the movement? For example Jimbo Wales was a supporter of erotic photography but wikimedia/wikipedia has never been involved in supporting erotic photography.

As far as what the doctrinal differences I'm counting on Thelma to fill that in. Evidentially there are some, I'm not letting her off the hook to fill that in. I'll go with citation needed for now. Finally, I kind of agree with you its some guy writing books about a phenomena and not a movement you can join, but the clause indicates Every Nation is sees it as a movement they have choosen not to associate with. They don't have to be right that its a movement for that statement to be true. Does that make sense?

jbolden1517^Talk 15:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Church Growth reference just seemed to be too much. There are lots of things that could be said about Wagner, but is it really necessary? I'd be as happy with "Church Growth expert" - listing both just seemed unnecessary.

Re: Whether one leader or the entire group supported NAR - I think it can safely be assumed Broocks was writing on behalf of the movement. He was the co-founder of EN, and the chapter he wrote was about EN rather than his personal views. If the main leader of the movement writes about it in a book explicitly about churches in NAR, surely it's not a leap to suggest EN once regarded itself as part of the general movement, at least in a broad sense?

Thelma herself said above that C Peter Wagner was Honorary Dean of ENLI (an "official tie"), which is why I thought "no longer officially tied to Wagner" was more accurate than "has no official ties to Wagner".

Whatever EN's views are now, everything I've read on the issue suggests they were once happy to be identified with the broad NAR movement, even if they have disassociated themselves now.

The last objection was about the phrase "doctrinal differences". It presupposes the NAR has a set of doctrines with which they can agree or disagree - I am just wondering what those are, since a loose movement doesn't necessarily have a set of doctrines in that way.

David L Rattigan 15:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

OK now that I understand the objection I went the other way. Church growth explains what this is all about without having to go into a bunch of other articles. I've also tried again on the issue of ties. Clearly EN is distancing themselves from something but I'm not sure what. I mean look at this from my perspective:

BB - EN is part of X and that is bad

T - EN was never part of X

D - EN was part of X but there is nothing wrong with that

Trying to come up with compromise language is rather difficult :-) jbolden1517^Talk 17:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. David L Rattigan's suggested re-write sounds fine. It's concise. Thelma Bowlen^Talk 08:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So what changes (if any) do you want to the language as it stands now? jbolden1517^Talk 04:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

We agree with David's suggested re-write. Thelma Bowlen^Talk 19:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)