Talk:R. L. Hymers Jr.

Verify Additional References?

Have we been able to independently verify the material from The Jerusalem Post, from the Hymers memoir, and from the L.A. Herald Examiner?

I'm particularly interested in the assertion that Hymers wasn't responsible for the "Jewish Money" chant, given (1) the staging of the passion play that made Wasserman an "evil Jew," the hiring of a plane with a banner demeaning Wasserman in an anti-semitic context, and the fact that in an earlier draft of this very same article, one of Hymers's surrogates actually gave an account wherein Hymers DID use the phrase "Jewish money" (though he "blurted it out," because someone "spat in his face," which he never, apparently, told the media about, despite the fact that he was trying to get as much media attention as possible in those days, and told a local news station that he considered himself very "media-savvy">

Color me skeptical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooge (talk • contribs) 05:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as a lot of this self-sourcing regarding Hymers is concerned, I'd like to reiterate the policies regarding autobiographical material for which the source is Hymers himself:

"Self-published and questionable sources about themselves Questionable sources, and most self-published sources, may only be used as sources about themselves, and then only if: the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it; the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Some of the Hymers-originated material in here does, indeed, appear to be "self-serving."

Scooge (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Scooge, this article needs many more independent sources and the self-reference sourcing needs to be kept to a minimum. Tgreach (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I streamlined it a bit and took out some of the verbiage that puts the reader inside Hymers' head (and sounds kind of press-releasey). It could use some deletion of quotes/citations from Hymers'/Cagen's books--particularly the self-published ones.Scooge (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Self-published references are acceptable for verifying non-extraordinary things about the subject, such as their religious views etc. If you can point out any phrases/sentences from a self-published reference that are contentious, self-serving or makes claims about someone other than the subject, please mention them. The majority of the references are self-written rather than self-published and confined to statements about his background and theological views. If there are sources that contradict this information, then it should be reviewed.

Scooge, I would like you to volunteer to cease editing the article. We've already discussed your clear conflict of interest and the special handling necessary for biographies. Your last "streamline" added in allegations of abuse, called church members henchmen and made other unsavory claims with no substantiation in sight. This is completely out of bounds on Wikipedia and will result in a block if it happens again. If you have legitimate concerns for the article, lets discuss them, but you need to let someone without such a strong bias do the editing. Shell ^babelfish 14:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

". . . his demonstrations against abortion and "The Last Temptation of Christ." He is the author of several books on conversion, apologetics and theological subjects."

This is biased, since it glosses over the nature of the media attention he received. He did not receive media attention for demonstrating against abortion: he received media attention for publicly praying on multiple occasions for the death of a Supreme Court Justice. To call that a demonstration against abortion is simply incorrect: according to the Los Angeles Times, he spent money to hire a plane to carry a banner calling for this man's death.

Likewise, the demonstrations were not against The Last Temptation of Christ. The demonstrations were against "Jewish money," and Wasserman's Jewishness were at the heart of those demonstrations--not the movie. Again: the news accounts from the time have him spending his church's money to hire a plane to carry an anti-Semitic banner at one of the demonstrations.

Furthermore, to say that he's well-known for his theological views likewise ignores those Los Angeles Times accounts of the lawsuits with his neighbor, the allegations of abuse, and so forth.

This many has actively lived by that credo that "there is no such thing as bad publicity," and to gloss over decades worth of it now is deeply dishonest--it glosses over the truth.Scooge (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Soul-winning and evangelism have always been at the heart of Hymers’ ministry."

I can't see how this could be considered neutral in the least. It's pure puff-piece language. It defines Hymers' ministry in the terms he would doubtless prefer, and labels what others might call "indoctrination" or "proselytizing" or even "evangelism" (thrown in there as a bit of redundancy) as "soul-winning." How does an encyclopedia know how souls are won?Scooge (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I added a bit to the lead to better explain the demonstration and add in the death prayer which seems to have been the most reported about part.

I'm not sure I can agree with the demonstrations being "about" Jewish money since the sources seem to say that it was about the movie, though the article does mention the chanting. The only banner I see in the article right now is the one asking for the death of Brenner - you wouldn't happen to know which source mentions another banner?

The bit about lawsuits and allegations of abuse would make sense for the article based on what the sources say, but its original research for us to decide that this contradicts his theological views. However, if a source says that his behavior contradicts his theological views, that's different.

You're absolutely right about the Theological views section, some of it was over the top - I've trimmed the phrase you mentioned and changed some other wording to hopefully tone it down. Does that seem better or do you have any further suggestions for that section? Shell ^babelfish 14:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The final paragraph is deceptive, because it ends the discussion of Hymers' antisemitic behavior with pabulum about Israel, and how the Holocaust must never happen again, which are OT in terms of the way his ministry treated Jews. More to the point: he never reconciled with the Jewish leaders he alienated over his "Last Temptation" protest, one of whom HAD PERFORMED HYMERS' WEDDING CEREMONY. After all, the rap against Hymers was not that he had be anti-Israel, and it did not deal with obscure theological issues about what Jews have to do to be "saved" in Christian terms, or about whether the Holocaust was a jolly idea that should be repeated: it was about him exploiting the Jewishness of filmmakers and tap into anti-Semitism in his attempts to give that film bad publicity. Scooge (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and in the "Theology" section, I would quarrel with the term "moderate" for a self-styled "Fundamentalist," which comes across as oxymoronic, and "classical," a word with so many meanings that its application in this context appears to be somewhat meaningless.Scooge (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm having an issue with this putative discussion with Spurgeon, regarding Hymers' decision to pray for the death of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. It appears that a lot of this text has to do with an attempt to explain, or "soften" Dr. Hymers' decision to publicly pray for this death, and to encourage his congregation to so the same. So we have this backstory about him watching television with Spurgeon, but the only source for this anecdote is Hymers himself:

"^ R.L. Hymers, Jr. (2000). Battle for the Bible in the 21st Century. Hearthstone Publishing, Ltd.. pp. 76–77.

Whassup with that? Scooge (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

How would you suggest changing the section to address that? Shell ^babelfish 18:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I already did, since no one else was willing to do it when I brought that concern up in June.Scooge (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Pastoral Style

Most of Scooge recent changes were very good, though surprising, since I was under the impression that she had agreed not to edit the article due to her strong conflict of interest. However, I've removed the Pastoral Style section entirely for several reasons. Creating an entire section of several paragraphs based on a single source gives it undue weight. As per earlier discussions, some of the content of that article was later retracted by the magazine, which makes it inappropriate for us to report that information and not mention the later correction.

How about this Scooge - could you suggest changes here on the talk page? I know you've given sources before (like above) but if you could suggest what you think should be added to the article based on those sources, it would be considerably helpful. Shell ^babelfish 18:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC) But I wasn't done with it, yet! I was adding in material from the L.A. Times articles when you removed the whole section! And I still have not seen any citation for the claim that Enroth or Eternity retracted this; we only have Hymers' word for that.Scooge (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC) This is frustrating, because I've emailed you a lot of these article, some of them multiple times, and the article is still weighted toward Hymers' POV. One cannot discuss Hymers without mentioning the control he's exerted over the lives of his followers. Scooge (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but as I've suggested many times, it would help if you could give me an idea what you think needs to be changed or added, specifically. Instead of saying "this is wrong", try saying "I'd change this paragraph to this...".. Any time you've tried to add information to the article (despite repeatedly promising not to edit it at all) its come across in a very biased manner. Stick to factual statements based on solid sources. I honestly shouldn't have to be back here every month or two - if you cannot uphold your promise not to edit the article voluntarily, I'm going to have to ask for something more formal which will mean your account will be blocked if you continue. Shell ^babelfish 18:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I just went and double-checked, we never did get solid verification that the information from the Eternity article had been retracted, so I think its safe to go ahead and use it. I would mention again though that giving that single source several paragraphs of the article is a bit much. Not that it shouldn't be used mind you, just that it should be condensed. Shell ^babelfish 18:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• sigh And you've gone ahead and reinserted it. Scooge, do you notice how the rest of the article uses several sources per paragraph while your section uses several paragraphs per source? That's what I mean about giving too much weight to single sources, its unbalanced compared to how the rest of the article is written. Some of the information you pasted in doesn't even appear in the source ("Allegations of an unorthodox, "fringe" approach to Christianity have cropped up throughout Hymers' career in the four organizations he has led: Maranatha Chapel, The Open Door Community Churches, The Fundamentalist Army, and The Fundamentalist Baptist Tabernacle, Hymers' current church in downtown Los Angeles.") Shell ^babelfish 19:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

But I thought that's what you wanted me to do: condense it and put it back. It is worth noting that one of the reasons that the other parts of the entry seem so rich in sources is that Hymers' own writing is used so extensively, including his self-published books. Scooge (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I wanted you to discuss the edit here and work out a way to do this that doesn't violate various Wikipedia policies. And we've had that discussion before too; the sources are used for non-controversial descriptions of Hymers history, church history and theology. But this is beside the point - other sections which are not using self-published sources are the same way, multiple sources for a single paragraph. You've also taken information already in the section on churches and reused the same reference to add the same information, expanded into two paragraphs. You don't like Hymers - we get it, really we do, but lets not go out of our way to smear the guy, please? Shell ^babelfish 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I know this has been mentioned before too - you cannot use the "Churches that Abuse" as a reference. As you stated yourself in the article, the book doesn't mention Hymers or his churches by name - it is your speculation that Enroth is referring to Hymers which is not sufficient for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. I've moved the bits that made sense back up into the churches section with the other criticism about his practices. Shell ^babelfish 19:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi all. Scooge, I've been watching this page as I told you I would in reference to your note on my talk page. I think Shell has it right here. Certainly the reliably sourced criticism can be mentioned, and the way Shell has it organized makes sense. I don't see how Enroth's book can be brought unless he ties it in himself - and didn't he end up backpedaling on Hymers a bit anyway? I may be getting my facts mixed up on that, but in any event, I see this article as being more neutrally written the way Shell has it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, and I'm happy with the way this turned out, but I do feel the need to defend myself, here--just as an editor: 1) I've been loading up this talk page with all the secondary sources, and no one has moved on it for months--and I've emailed this stuff to Shell separately--both last summer and this summer--but there was never any follow-up; 2) at one point I took an entire year off from editing this article, after sending Shell a number of articles from the L.A. Times about Hymers; that was my attempt to conform to the Wikipedia suggestion that one take a few months off when editorial conflicts get too intense, but the response was a threat that I might lose my editing privileges entirely 3) Shell doesn't know what the final draft would have looked like, since she deleted a bunch of my copy before I could really edit it, and while I was trying to respond to her criticisms she was already moving my copy, without giving me a chance to address her concerns. 4) The reason the section was long was that I was taking care to quote passages from those two article verbatim, so I couldn't be accused of distorting them--and the reaction was to criticize me for their length! 5) I had no intention of leaving the duplicate information in place. FWIW, as things stand the chronology is a bit screwed up, since Enroth's criticisms of the Fundamentalist Army--and Koenig's remarks about the Open Door Community Church--are quoted in a paragraph about the Fundamentalist Baptist Tabernacle. But, whatever. One more little thing: 6) if Hymers can come in here and revert a bunch of good-faith edits I made in the most generous possible spirit, and I was rebuked for referring to it as "vandalism" . . . . how is it then appropriate to suggest that material I add to this article has to do with the notion that I "don't like" Hymers? 7) I do like Hymers. I feel sorry for him. But this article shouldn't be a whitewash--this guy is actively recruiting people into his church, and documented instances of his abuse that come from mainstream sources DO, as I see it, belong in this article.Scooge (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Pastoral Style draft

Allegations of an unorthodox approach to Christianity have cropped up throughout Hymers' career in the four organizations he has led: Maranatha Chapel, The Open Door Community Churches, The Fundamentalist Army, and The Fundamentalist Baptist Tabernacle, Hymers' current church in downtown Los Angeles.

Dr. Ronald Enroth [link to Enroth's Wikipedia entry] wrote an article for Eternity Magazine that appeared in October of 1986--and suggested Hymers closely restricted the lives of his congregants:

""Unconventional" and "uncompromising" are two adjectives that have been used to describe the ministry of Hymers and his fellow fundamentalists. His dramatic (some say sensational) sermon titles are known throughout Southern California and contribute to his image of being on the ecclesiastical fringe. "Nothing like this in Los Angeles" the circulars proclaim. "You will hear Dr. R. L. Hymers speak on 'Why They Hate Me.' Demons will be cast out. Healings will be performed. People will be dramatically Spirit-filled before your very eyes-all in the name and power of Christ (we are not Pentecostals)." The handbill continues with a warning not found in many mainstream evangelical churches: "Because of the electrifying and provocative nature of this program, no children under the age of 12 will be admitted." Although Hymers is identified as "Founder and President" of The Fundamentalist Army, he is assisted in the ministry by numerous pastors and "stewards" in a system of house churches scattered throughout metropolitan Los Angeles. Sometimes the duties and requirements of the assistants are unusual indeed.

For example, a bulletin insert dated December 12, 1982 calls on all stewards and helpers to have five vitamin C tablets wrapped in tin foil in their pockets."You are required to show Rev. Olivas, if he should ask, your 5 vitamin C tablets wrapped in tin foil. When you first feel a tickle in your throat, take a vitamin C pill every hour until the tickle is gone." Those in leadership explain that discipline is necessary when working with young Christians from diverse socio-economic and cultural backgrounds. The same bulletin insert provides insight into the movement's rules for the holidays. The reader is told that Christmas and New Year's Eve are Christian holidays, not pagan feast days. "We expect you to be in church worshiping God. not with lost relatives, worshiping mammon. Those over 18 years of age who miss any of these holy days, will be barred from the Movement.""

Enroth later expanded on this theme in his 1992 book Churches that Abuse (one of the top books of 1992 in Christianity Today, and published by Zondervan), discussing the restrictions placed upon Hymers' followers, but without mentioning Hymers or his church by name. Yet Enroth alluded to the Vitamin C dictum and the isolation from family and outside influences often experienced by members of Hymers' churches as delineated in his earlier article, and he's quite obviously discussing Hymers' pastoral style. The Los Angeles Times has published allegations that members of Hymers' churches hit them, and publicly humiliated them. [citation goes to "Hymers' Fight"]:

Rafael J. Gomez, 33, who said he dropped out of UCLA after joining Hymers' organization in 1978, recalled an occasion when he and one of Hymers' pastors, Jeff Koenig, arrived for a meeting at an apartment that Hymers then rented in Westwood. Koenig was talking loudly outside and Hymers flung open the door to greet them, Gomez said.

"He swung the screen door out and just slapped Koenig across the face and called him a stupid Jew and a kike and practically dragged him in by the collar," Gomez said. In the 3 1/2 years in Hymers' church, he said, "I saw him hit people or push people more than 50 times. It's just hard to catalogue them all."

Okay: I've gone back in and condensed that section greatly, but right now it relies on Enroth's article, Enroth's book, and the Los Angeles Times. It could use more references, which I can probably get from the other L.A. Times articles, and the Examiner. (Though I'll have to go to a library for that.)Scooge (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, okay--scratch all that. So much for drafting things out on this page. Scooge (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Added text from Sumner

Does the Sumner defense of Hymers belong in the "Demonstrations" section? It would appear that the focus of his defense (and the justification for quoting him at such length) is his putative expertise in the arena of cults (at least those defined by doctrine, such as JWs and Mormons), and that the segment might better be placed in the "churches" section. Also, is it perhaps a bit long? If it's inappropriate to quote Enroth too extensively, it might be equally inappropriate to quote Sumner too extensively.

The last I heard, we were shooting for several citations per paragraph, so I suspect this segment ought to be trimmed back. FWIW.Scooge (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Since I've been accused of bringing up problems, rather than solutions, I'll see if I can trim that segment back a bit. I would move it, as I said, to the "Churches" section, and trim it like we trimmed Enroth:

(How do I do a blockquote on this page?)* * *

Dr. Robert L. Sumner [link to his Wikipedia page], considered an expert on cults by many Fundamentalists after his writing on doctrinally irregular groups such as [maybe buttress this claim with a few actual examples of Sumner's work on the LDS's, JWs, Mormons?--could create a nice excuse to enhance citation density?], has vigorously countered the claims of Ronald Enroth and of some former Hymers congregants. After conducting extensive interviews with Dr. Hymers and other church members, spending several days observing Dr. Hymers' management style closely, and interviewing a few aggrieved former members, Dr. Sumner concluded that "all the charges, including [those of] abuse and anti-Semitism, were untrue." He has pointed out that despite his own presence on the Board of References at the Fundamentalist Baptist Tabernacle for some years, "the critics have never contacted me." [Footnote would then be: Dr. Robert L. Sumner, “False Charges,” The Biblical Evangelist, November/December 2008, p. 15].

• * *

That's one possible trim, though I haven't compared the length of the Sumner section to that of the Enroth section, and they should be, I believe, given equal weight in the final article. Scooge (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Couple of things. First, to do a quote and make it intent nicely, you can use {{quote|your text here}}. Second, about the text added from Volume 39, Number 5, September - October 2008 of The Biblical Evangalist, I had to remove it entirely. At first, I couldn't even find it in the issue, when I did find it in Sumner's editorial "Off the Cuff" section, I realized that someone had copied it verbatim. This is a copyright violation; Wikipedia cannot accept text or images copied from books, magazines or other websites. In addition, this appears to be a self-published newspaper/magazine of questionable reliability per Wikipedia's standards (see: reliable sources policy). I understand the interest in rebutting the claims of the LA newspapers, but a friend's opinion in the editorial section of his self-published paper doesn't fit the bill. Shell ^babelfish 20:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Alrightly, more stuff from me. I've actually realized that Dr. Sumner has a Wikipedia page (should have seen that in Scooge's comment earlier, sorry) and does appear to be well-known in the field. This is one of the exceptions for using self-published sources so I believe the shorter statement and brief quote that were re-added to the article are appropriate. I've also been made aware that Dr. Sumner is not actually a friend of the subject, so I apologize for my earlier mis-statement. Shell ^babelfish 06:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hymers and Sumner must know each other, because according to Sumner's own statement, he spent some time in constant contact with Hymers' church at one point researching his article. Also, he is on the Board of References (or whatever they call it) for the Fundamentalist Baptist Tabernacle, and has been for years. Clearly, the two men know each other and are on friendly terms.

At some point someone's going to have to go back in and re-balance the artcle; the last half-dozen edits or so have been intended to skew things back in Hymers' favor--e.g., removing part of the Enroth quotation, using the word "defunct" to indicate that Eternity is now no longer being actively published, throwing the term "twenty years ago" when referring to allegations of abuse, and implying that Dr. Sumner talked to all or most of the survivors of Hymers' group, when presumably he only talked to a few of them (Sumners makes this point himself, because in his article he says that he's been listed as a reference for Hymers' church for years, and "the critics" haven't taken the trouble to get in touch with him. That would also imply, of course, that before writing the article he did not go so far as to contact them.)

There may also be one significant L.A. Times article missing from this summary, since IIRC Dr. Hymers' "Answer to His Critics" discusses the Sumner article as being a sort of response to a critical article about Hymers in the L.A. Times, and one of the edits just performed to this article (presumably by an ally of Hymers/Sumner) tells us that the Sumner article came out last year. So there is clearly more data available out there from secondary sources that should probably be folded in, particularly if Sumner's research into the Fundamentalist Baptist Tabernacle was a response to it. We probably don't want the response to the criticism here without the criticism it's specifically responding to. Scooge (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice work, Shell. I had only read part of the Sumner article quoted in Hymers' "Response to Critics" home page; thanks for clarifying the chronology and reinstating the edited part of the Enroth quote. It seems to read better now.Scooge (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"To Do"--Golden Gate sourcing/phrasing

Just a note to myself here; something that will have to be taken care of eventually, though it can probably wait until my legal

He then attended Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, a Southern Baptist school north of San Francisco, and graduated in 1973 with a Master of Divinity degree (M.Div.). While attending this school, Hymers confronted some of the professors over their rejection of the full authority of the Scriptures. Hymers strongly believed in the complete reliability and inerrancy of the Scriptures.[3]

What's being said here is that Dr. Hymers' theology profs--at a Baptist seminary--did not believe in the authority of the Bible, which is a pretty strong claim if one thinks about it--and the source for this claim is one of Hymers' own books. The guys at Golden Gate aren't even given a voice here concerning that particular controversy. It's been a while since I looked into this, but I know that the Baptist press covered it in a more neutral way than it's being treated here. (Actually, I think there were a few different controversies between Hymers and Golden Gate; IIRC, one involved H. speaking out against a relaxing of the rules against dancing, though that might have been at a different institution. As I said, it's been a while.)

Lacking better sourcing, however, we might consider more neutral language, along the lines of:

He then attended Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, a Southern Baptist school north of San Francisco, and graduated in 1973 with a Master of Divinity degree (M.Div.). While attending this school, Hymers engaged in debates with some of his professors, who--he maintained--did not believe in the complete reliability and authority of the Bible.[3]

Okay; now let's see if that indentation dealie-bopper worked for me . . .Scooge (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Darn. I shall never get the hang of this Wiki-markup stuff. Oh, well; I'm probably just having html flashbacks or something.Scooge (talk) 05:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The < nowiki > tags need to come out when you use it :) Shell ^babelfish 06:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I knew that; I was just testing you. Scooge (talk) 07:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Keeps me on my toes :D Regarding the content though, you have a point; since this is a claim written by the subject and not a third-party, attributing it as such would be appropriate. Shell ^babelfish 14:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Next, I'll be asking about indentations to indicate thread-continuity on Talk pages. As soon as someone tells me, I'll claim I knew all along . . .  :) I'm going to hold off on that edit, as I mentioned, until things have stabilized in terms of my outside concerns with the subject. (I think that's clear from my remark above, though I realize I managed to delete some of my own copy while I was playing with the template.)Scooge (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an easy one - a colon causes the indent; if you want to respond to something that's indented, you just put one more colon in front of your response than it has. For example (check out the source for the next two lines):

Hey there!

Wow, that's a lot of colons!

So long as the colons are the first characters in your paragraph (you have to put the colons in front of each paragraph if your answer is longer), you get the right indent the whole way through. Shell ^babelfish 21:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: Absent any objections over the next couple of days (or someone coming up with a third-party source), I'll go ahead and make the change. Shell ^babelfish 21:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)