Talk:Assemblies of God/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive of discussions for 2004 through 2009. Note: discusssions may be refactored.

Missionettes and Royal Rangers

Could mention be made of the Missionette and Royal Ranger programs? Missionettes is a program for girls grades K - 12, Royal Rangers is a program for boys, grades K - 12, with a Rainbow program for both boys and girls for 3 and 4 year olds. Rainbows is run under the Missionette umbrella. Links are Missionettes Web Site and Ranger web sit. [Unsigned comment by User:Entrprs6 18:14, 17 December 2004]

I quote from Pastor Bernie Elliot, national coordinator for Teen Bible Quiz: "It's not a program, it's a ministry!" That applies to Missionettes and Rangers, too. We'll work on some material about them, and maybe Fine Arts and general youth stuff, too. Realkyhick 15:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, this whole article is in need of information regarding official positions and stuff. Also, the RR, JBQ, and Missionettes ministries need information added about them. I'll work on this some time. Robotbeat 07:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Missionettes rocks!!!--->an honor star —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.119.31.5 (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Church of South India?

Just wondering about the content that anon user 168.187.0.34/168.187.0.35 has added saying that the majority of members are initially from the Church of South India?? This doesn't seem to make much sense given that the AoG was founded in the USA several decades before the foundation of the CSI.. am I missing something here or should this sentence be removed? —Stormie 02:43, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with the Gateway Worship Center, Assembly of God in Clatskanie, Or?

This church is a highly oppinionated church and tends to feel that what they feel God says to them is the only way. I would HIGHLY encourage anyone who is willing to investigate cults, to investigate this church and share your findings. Find out how many people have been cast out of the church and how many have walked away. Question the past of the pastor and his wife and look deeper then what may show on the surface... I believe it is in the best interest of everyone that the truth be known. May the truth be known. [Unsigned comment by User:67.160.178.62 07:05, 3 November 2005]

"Question the past of the pastor and his wife and look deeper then what may show on the surface..." What is that supposed to mean? This is not what wikipedia is about! You are not just on some Internet forum! Robotbeat 07:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

In defence of the anonymous author, AoG (and other Pentecostal) churches often have a small autocratic leadership. The results of a denomination-wide study into the practices that author mentions would be a worthy addition to this article. 220.253.21.52 03:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with the first post. is anyone familiar with the Mears of California and Tennessee. The "minister" moved something like 400 parisoners to White House TN and was later convicted of molesting his niece. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.166.226.43 (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

General Council Assemblies of God (USA)?

I think that the various independent AG denominations need to be acknowledged and also differentiated from the General Council of the Assemblies of God (USA). Robotbeat 08:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Statistics

Dear Robotbeat,

This article is about the General Council of the Assemblies of God, other denomination bearing the same name should have their own article, as it is the case of the Independent Assemblies of God, International. Not all denominations named "Assemblies of God" shares the same doctrine and practice.

The most authoritative sources about the the AG, for instance David B. Barrett - World Christian Encyclopedia (2001), give 11-18 million to the Assemblies of God.

Some AG leaders diffuse an inacurate and exagerated data about their membership, for example, in Canada, the AoG counts the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada and the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland (togather aorund 1,500 churches) as their members because they have mutual fellowship, however, the Canadian Assemblies of God, which is actually affiliated with the AOG, is much smaller, counting with only 30 congregations throughout Canada. Same case is the Yoido Full Gospel Church which appears in many statistics as a Assembly of God church, but in reallity just the pastor, Paul Cho, it is, and not the congregation. --Leonardo Alves 22:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the above statement is not true. All three Canadian Church are part of the Assemblies of God. They may use different names, but function as part of the AG.

Yoido Full Gospel Church is an Assemblies of God Church and always has been. Denominational names can be confusing around the world, but the affiliations don't lie. [Unsigned comment by User:Dougandmegan 03:39, 20 August 2007]

(First of all, please try to spell correctly. It's a pet peeve of mine. Sorry. ;) )

If you actually tried looking at the sources I gave, you'd understand. If the Brazilian Census Bureau thinks it's reasonable to have a section called "Assemblies of God" and include other denominations besides the USA affiliated ones, then I think it's appropriate to include those numbers under an article titled "Assemblies of God." In fact, it really bugs me that you keep changing it back. Please use the "15 million" figure ONLY when talking about the General Convention Assemblies of God.

And I take exception that you say that AG leaders exaggerate the data, when they clearly have the actual statistics on their webpage. the "51 million" number is 100% TRUE when talking about AG in general (which, if I'm not mistaken, the article is about). If you still want to use the "15 million" number, then please make a different page for each division of AG. Thank you. Robotbeat 03:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The saying that the assemblies of God is the largest. That's a crock! we Baptists dwarf you all be the millions. [Unsigned comment by User:68.40.45.171 20:39, 6 February 2006]

AG is the largest pentecostal protestant denomination. Of course there are more baptists (I go to a Baptist university). Robotbeat 22:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to jump into this discussion as well, regarding the Assemblies of God, as I am an A/G General Council (USA) licensed minister. I have also attended Gordon-Conwell and I am now attending the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary. The plain fact is that the A/G has now been proven to be the largest protestant church in the world. We have recently surpassed the Baptists in worldwide numbers. I want to also incert that we remain the fastest growing Christian church in the world. I would also add that about 2 to 3 years ago the Southern Baptists came to us for help with their missions because they have realized that we have been able to reach far more people than they have. Of course, we can only help them to an extent because it is the power of the Spirit that has made us successful and not some gimmick or scheme that we use. In truth, the A/G does not take a strong enough stand on Spirit baptism and many other issues. We allow people like the previous Baptist writer to attack us without atleast defending ourselves and the scriptures. We do defend the scriptures well in our beliefs but we need to become better about bringing doctrines that are clearly false to light (i.e. eternal security). The truth of the matter is that God is changing the church around the world. Dallas Theological is one of a very few seminaries who still partially deny the power of the Spirit and his gifts. This was finalized at a conference of all evangelicals in the 90's, when the major scholars of the "anti-Spirit empowerment" movements all agreed that they could no longer deny the Spirit for today. They agreed that the biblical evidence points to the contrary. Walter Kaiser actually stood up and said that they could no longer reject the biblical evidence but that they would need time and patience from the A/G in order to change their people's minds. It has been estimated that by the next century "if Jesus doesn't return first" the pentecostal church will be the only church, due to the rapid decline of the other churches and their new acceptence of the truth. However, I do want to say that we do not wish to wear the empowerment of the Spirit as a badge or something. The baptism of the Spirit is for everyone who is a Christian. It is obvious that God wished all believers to except the gift. However, some choose to remain ignorant and thus we pray that they will see an urgency in seeking his empowerment for the church. Coming back to the topic of numbers, the Baptists are the largest in America, not the world! [Unsigned comment by User:12.207.19.159 19:07, 20 February 2007]

Could not help but jump in this discussion as I watch this article. To give some perspective, the World Assemblies of God Fellowship (WAGF) is the body which encompasses the General Council of the Assemblies of God USA (henceforth "General Council AG") and all the national Assemblies of God fraternal organizations throughout the world, which may assume other names (e.g., Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada). This is the body which numbers over 51 million people and as of the year 2000 was growing at 10,000 converts a day. Unlike other denominations, the Assemblies of God fraternal organizations scattered throughout the world are autonomous to the mother denomination which sent the first missionaries (the General Council AG). This unique characteristic is due to the indigenous church planting model assumed by the General Council AG at the outset of its missionary work. This is a broad statement, however, as various Pentecostal movements were emerging simultaneously around the world at the turn of the twentieth century without the missionary impetus of the General Council AG. Many of these later became fraternal organizations of the loose body of like-minded Pentecostals that recently became known as the WAGF. This is why many fraternal organizations (e.g., Australian Assemblies of God) claim that the Assemblies of God is unique among movements in that it claims no one person as its founder. As a matter of record, the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, Newfoundland, and the Yoido Full Gospel Church (not just its pastor) are all duly affiliated fraternal organizations of the World Assemblies of God Fellowship. A cursory look through their websites, literature, staff biographies, vision, ministries and doctrine attests to the fact that they are affiliated with the WAGF. For instance, the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland's College ministry is Chi Alpha Christian Fellowship and the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada cites the WAGF as an affiliated body (its website is almost identical in header format and color to that of the General Council AG). Something must be said for the almost exponential growth and influence of the WAGF and other Pentecostal bodies. As to the exaggerated numbers, there is plenty of research from the Barna Group and others, which demonstrates the fidelity of the WAGF's statistics. Although the General Council AG is relatively small in the United States, the evidence is out there that it is one of the fastest growing Christian organizations in the U.S., while its sister fraternal organizations are the largest or second largest Christian denomination (not just Pentecostal) in several countries. (Danny "dj" Morales 03:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC))

The following external links provide some more insight into my comments above: [1] the A/G World Missions Facts link provides WAGF statistics valid as of 2006 [2] A Spirit-Led Mission: discusses AOG indigenous missions model; [3] Our History: chronicles the formation of the Assemblies of God in Australia; [4], About the Canadian Assemlies of God: page from the ethnic fellowship (Italian) that is affiliated with the WAGF and cooperative with the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, and [5] Yoido Full Gospel Church Story: offers a synopsis of the church including its affiliation (on page 11) [6] Conservative Churches Grew Fastest in 1990s, Report Says: a New York Times article detailing a 2000 study conducted by the Glenmary Research Center and sponsored by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies. Danny "dj" Morales 08:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Today I removed Stone Church which had been listed as a Megachurch. I just called the Stone Church office, where I was told that their auditorium holds 600 people and they have 2 services Sunday morning. I've attended weddings at this church so I know that these numbers are correct. Maximum Sunday morning attendance of 1,200 does not qualify as a Megachurch. --BibleTeacher 18:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Mega churches are any church over 1,000 in attendance as part of the main Sunday morning worship service. This also includes Saturday evening services if the same sermon is used.

Just a note. AG is the appropriate abbreviation. AoG is only used by those who do not know what the denomination calls itself. [Unsigned comment by User:Dougandmegan 03:39, 20 August 2007]

History

Dear Leonardo:

Respectfully request that you research and report AG history with more accuracy. The previous article had the history pretty close and without prejudicial language. It was also concise, which made it even nicer.

The early denomination suffered a ideological split when the Jesus Only Controversy arouse. Between the World Wars the movement kept a relative isolation from other Pentecostal and Evangelical groups, but after the WWII the AoG started an aproximation with pentecostal groups overseas, like the Federation of Pentecostal Churches in Germany, and as well as establishing fellowship within the national borders, through the Pentecostal Fellowhsip of North America and the National Association of Evangelicals.

The AoG received the influence of the Latter Rain Movement in the 1950's, which the General Council condemned.

Today the fellowship is organized under the General Council of the Assemblies of God (USA), with a constituency of 2.7 million and 12,277 churches[1]. The American AoG is very ethnically diversified, reaching people of different races and cultures.

[See 02:26, 7 March 2006 revision]

The AG had "approximation" with overseas pentecostal groups as of 1914. After all, representatives from various countries were involved with the formation of the AG to begin with. Furthermore, once indigenous fellowships were planted or joined with overseas, approximation ensued automatically. As a matter of record, the AG was instrumental in the formation of the National Association of Evangelicals. The comment about the ideological split is historical and significant.

Why mention the influence of the Latter Rain Movement if the General Council condemned it? From all evidence, any influence was small and transient. It affected people in all denominations, Baptists included. This comment is in line with some of the criticisms, and misimpressions, of those outside and critical of the Pentecostal movement.

The fellowship within the U.S. was organized under the name "General Council of the Assemblies of God" back in 1914. The "USA" in parantheses only distinguishes it from other general councils, and there are several so named, outside of the United States. As a matter of record, this article is about the largest Pentecostal denomination in the world which is universally referred to as simply the "Assemblies of God." Due to its widespread use and meaning, the name generally applies to fraternal organizations of the World Assemblies of God Fellowship or atleast those who identify with it. All others have to distinguish themselves from the WAGF lest they become confused with them due to the widespread association of this name with the WAGF. This fact is a part of every day reality all over the world. AG adherents in say Australia, Britain, and the Bahamas for instance would say they are "Assemblies of God" just as an American AG adherent would say they too are "Assemblies of God." AG adherents in Latin American would say they are "Asambleas de Dios," while those in much of Africa and France would say they are "Assamblées de dieu" and those in Italy would say they are a part of the "Assemblee di Dio." Who is the real "Assemblies of God" adherent? They all are. Who should this article represent? All of them. It just makes sense.

Also, Eudorus Bell was the one who called for the convening of the first General Council through his periodical. I hope this helps in the evolution of this article. Danny "dj" Morales 12:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

INSERTED by random AoG student: The AoG did not explicitly condemn the Latter Rain Movement but rather condemned several of the practices thereof such as the impartation of gifts by the laying on of hands and the claims of modern day apostles etc. [Unsigned comment by User:66.119.31.5 02:15, 27 April 2007]

In addition, There was also a theological (not just racial) difference with the Church of God in Christ. The Assemblies of God is generally a "two-stage" denomination, believing in Salvation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit. The Church of God in Christ is "three-stage" believing in Salvation, an instantaneous Sanctification (versus gradual), and Baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Also, Central Bible College was originally called Central Bible Institute. The name was later changed. Republicson 11:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)republicson

Regardless of the theological difference,the theological difference was not the definitve factor that excluded African-Americans in the early formation and leadership of the organization. The racial division was heavily influenced by the social and political atmosphere at the time under Jim Crow laws in the United States resulting in A/G early exclusion of African-American leadership. [Unsigned comment by User:138.163.0.46 23:02, 9 March 2007]

External Links

The external links listed in this section are to individual churches and organizations related to the Assemblies of God. The purpose of External Links is to provide sources and other points of reference related to the topic. None of the listed websites do so, they are all adverts for the individual churches and orgs associated to Assemblies of God. Fail to see how these are usefell in educating people about the organization. Pastor Linu 08:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Linu's comment doesn't make a great deal of sense to me and by the look of his User Contributions, he may have just disappeared off Wikipedia. HOWEVER - the list is rather untidy so I've left the cleanup sign there. Do you think we should maybe create a separate (sub-)page with a list of the members of the Worldwide AOG? Let me know what you think Jaems 13:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Jaems, External Links in Wikipedia artilces is supposed to lead to Additional Sources related to the topic of the Article. You can reffer this in TOS of Wikipedia, You can think about creating a List of AOG churches as another Article. Pastor Linu 20:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I removed the references to fraternal organizations that did not have links. These all fall under the "External Links" sub-category, so it goes without saying that all references should have website links. As background, I added all the national fraternal organizations (with websites) over a period of days in March 2006 to provide a means to research the AG in several countries. Danny "dj" Morales 00:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's doesn't really look like a clean up Danny, This is not a Link Directory. Pastor Linu 13:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Pastor, what I cleaned up back in June were entries without links. I'm not sure if that is what Jaems was talking about. However, what exists now is the most extensive listing of AOG national organizations available on the internet, a very significant fact in terms of research. This listing is not an advert but perhaps the best way to provide "sources and other points of reference" related to the Assemblies of God phenomenum throughout the world. The floor is certainly open for discussion.Danny "dj" Morales 20:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits on 7 May 2006

I am a little concerned about edits made today by User:Christiantoday. What looks like 30 or 40 edits were made within a short space of time, making it extremely difficult for other editors to trace what changes were made. Some of those I have already noticed include deletions that I can only imagine were made for POV reasons, eg deleting figures such as the Bakkers and the Crouches (of TBN). David L Rattigan 17:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC) 18:38 07 May 2006 UTC

I'm not quite sure why User:Christiantoday deleted the links from Armenian, etc... Any extrapolation of the terms could have been done under the linking text. Good re-edit, Rattigan. User:Christiantoday, can you explain what you're doing and why, please? Expanding the lists, good... deleting links w/out a reason, bad... Jaems 01:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Confused

I'm confused and this article didn't alleviate that confusion. Looking through all different flavours of Christianity, all seem very open to fellow Christians; however in person when encountering various sects and cults of Christianity every one uses the principal of "Except a man be born again, he CANNOT see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3) and based on that also stipulate that Roman Catholics aren't 'Christian' yet they are baptised and 'born again'.

Where does this double-baptism requirement stem from? Further, for AOG as with most Pentecostal groups, do they all believe that other Pentecostal groups of various ministries are 'going to hell' like they do with other ministries and sects of Christianity?

These are legitimate questions I have been seeking an answer to for my own personal research, no matter where I search I find every ministry and every flavour of Christianity damning all other religions including other Christian religions yet on Wikipedia I see no reference to such, so if someone would alleviate this and help me in my search by defining what the double-baptism requirement (or must it just be an adult baptism? and if so what difference does age of baptism make if one accepts it regardless?) and where the whole ongoing theological maxim of 'this is the one true way all others are false' comes into play in relation to AOG? Jachin 04:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Confused,

I am not with the Assemblies of God, but I'm very familar with their teaching, as well as the Bible.

The A/G does not teach a requiement of double baptism. To get into heaven all one needs is to be Baptized by Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ. Which is the same as being born again. Since that event is not visible to our fellow humans, water baptism is a physical event which represents the Spiritual re-birth or being born from above as described in John 3:3 and John 3:5. In this area, A/G is very similar to what most other Evangelical Christians believe. The A/G has never taught that all who disagree go to hell. In fact the A/G has been a very prominant member of the National Association of Evangelicals ( www.nae.net ) for over 50 years.

If you go to the NAE web site, you'll see a list of over 50 denominations which agree with the A/G about salvation.

The A/G does teach Baptism into the Holy Spirit by Jesus which is for the purpose of giving the believer who already received the Holy Spirit when he got saved (see John 20:22) an additional endument of power, just like the Apostle received in Acts chapter 2.

The purpose of this extra power is to preach the gospel.

It much easier to preach the gospel when your ministry includes healing the sick and raising the dead.

The current movie "End of the Spear" shows how missionaries often give their lives to reach primitive people with the gospel.

When the Apostles preached the Gospel they did so healing the sick and raising the dead. That's how the Gospel spread thru the world so quickly by 12 poor uneducated men.

The A/G believe and teach that those miracles should be occuring today in the life of the believer just like they did in the lives of the Apostles as recorded in the book of Acts.

If you have more questions feel free to ask. pastorarthur@earthlink.net [Unsigned comment by User:BibleTeacher 18:03, 17 June 2006]

Please look at the statitics. It is very old. Need to be updated 203.101.48.96 20:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am so sorry to let you know that we dont believe that you NEED to be baptize in/by the Holy Spirit to go to heaven we believe in the repentance of sins and after you accepted Jesus in your heart is your duty to seek the baptisim in/of Holy Spirit but its not something that will keep you from going to heaven. [Unsigned comment by User:144.5.224.144 18:13, 20 December 2006]

What do they actually believe?

The article doesn't clearly, concisely, and boldly explain what this group believes in, nor what makes them different from another group. [Unsigned comment by User:68.239.239.219 18:37, 31 July 2006]

I disagree. It explains what they believe and how similar they are to many other Bible believing denominations.

There are clickable links in the early part of this article which point to the theological statements of the Assemblies of God.

The note listed above, addressed to "Dear Confused" appears pretty accurate to me as well. --BibleTeacher 18:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What they believe can be found clearly here. Its not that difficult to figure out.

They don't believe baptism saves you. According to this page, "Salvation is received through repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ. By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, being justified by grace through faith, man becomes an heir of God, according to the hope of eternal life."

Basically they believe the Bible is 100% absolute truth, similar to Calvinists, but they have several significant but nonessential doctrines which are different mostly due to interpretation of key verses dealing with subjects such as eternal security, spiritual gifts, and others. [Unsigned comment by User:Recon 777 02:21, 27 August 2006]

dear confused and even more confused:

I am with the AoG and want to clarify we do not believe in infant baptism, salvation is contingent upon a person's ability to accept Jesus as their Lord, so baptism is a symbolism of their confession of faith in Jesus. Baptism doesn't save, but is a public display of their death to their sinful past and their new life in Christ.

The baptism in the Holy Spirit is not contingent upon salvation. It is a second work of grace, a very important work, but not as important to salvation through Christ. The baptism in the Holy Spirit is for empowerment for witnessing, and for gaining the gifts of the spirit as outline in 1 Corinthians.

Lastly, the statistics the AoG puts out are very researched and turned in by individual pastors and missionaries. There is one Assembly of God, but it is very like the United States, there are 50 states (different nations, state districts all operate independently) and there is the Federal US, there is the Wolrdwide AoG that governs all of the state districts and other national districts. [Unsigned comments by User:66.119.31.5 01:43, 5 December 2007]

What about the Azusa Street Revivial?

Seems to me like the AG themselves trace their origin to the Azusa street revival in LA in the early decades of the 20th century. Very odd that the history would omit that. [Unsigned comment by User:Jrovira 02:47, 11 August 2006]

Yes, that's correct – the AG church considers it's start to be at the Azusa revival. [Unsigned comment by User:71.158.222.227 07:33, 19 August 2006]

Actually, the AG considers it's start to be from the Charles Parham school. Although the Azuza Street Revival was an important element, the Charasmatic renewal that sparked the Assemblies of God started when Agnes Ozman spoke in tongues at the watchnight service, 1901 AD. Offically, it formed at the first General Council Meeting at Hot Springs Arkansas in April 1914. Source- "The Assemblies of God, A Popular History" by Edith Blumhofer. [Unsigned comment by User:Revmedic 19:52, 11 February 2007]

Just goto the Assembly of God Website or ask a local pastor of what the origin of the church is. Each church is independently ran but linked to the Assemblies due to missionaries and schools. Each person needs to seek out there own salvation. The A/G church believes 100% the Bible is the infallible Word of God. At the website, you will find the history of the Assembly of God Organization. We love everyone equal just as Jesus loved everyone. Visit one and let them show how welcomed you are. [Unsigned comment by User:147.58.126.199 22:41, 19 February 2007]

Actually it's revival in topeka Kansas and hot springs arkansas, then the move to Springfield, mo. [Unsigned comment by User:66.119.31.5 01:44, 5 December 2007]

Beliefs

I have added a short section, summarizing the Statement of Fundamental Truths. Yakuman 20:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Megachurches affiliated with the Assemblies of God

I started another article dedicated expressly to Megachurches affiliated with the Assemblies of God. I did this due to the ever-growing entries in the main Assemblies of God article. In my opinion, the growing subcategory was taking away from the main article and at the same time not giving enough attention to the significant phenomenon of megachurches within the Assemblies of God (there are hundreds throughout the world). It is my hope that the new article will do some justice to both. Danny "dj" Morales 22:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits written from perspective of AOG (member?) - POV

The areticle needs to attempt to be encyclopedic and NPOV. Paul foord 05:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert on 7 January 2007

Reverted the article to its version as of 7 January 13:39 UTC. The article split subsequent to that version was drastic in my judgement and done without any prior discussion. The split was also indicative of a lack of understanding of the history of all fellowships that bear the name "Assemblies of God." The first incorporation of such a body was in 1914. This incorporated body gave rise to what is today known as the World Assemblies of God Fellowship (WAGF). The WAGF is the largest Pentecostal denomination in the world with a global adherence of 54.7 million people as of late 2006 AGWM PowerPoint on Current Facts and Figures, the fastest growing fellowship in the U.S. [7], and one of the largest evangelical bodies in many countries (Iran, Burma, Cuba to name a few). As I mentioned above, given the size of the WAGF and the fact that the other similarly-named fellowships came after the General Council of the Assemblies of God (USA) (the Assemblies of God International Fellowship for instance was founded in 1922 [8]), I would argue that the day-to-day reality around the world is that the name "Assemblies of God" is synonymous with the WAGF. This body is what the article should mostly represent and then include links to the other similarly-named fellowships. That said, if the article should be less U.S.-centric, then discussion should be undertaken as how best to represent the worldwide phenomenon known as the "Assemblies of God" movement. The floor, as always, is open to discussion. Please let's do so before such drastic action is taken without regard to facts both past and present.Danny "dj" Morales 00:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a ton of work

There is no section on the various controversies that have and do exist in the movement. The Article is very hard to read and very confusing and looks like a link supermarket to me. I am considering nominating this article for deleation Magnum Serpentine 01:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Magnum Serpentine, i've tried to improve the article by splitting it in three: the World Assemblies of God Fellowship for the international body; the General Council of the Assemblies of God of the United States for the US group based in Springfield, MO, and left the Assemblies of God for an introduction/disambiguation, but it was quickly reversed.--Leonardo Alves 05:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless the origional editors and creators of this site fix it totally, I will nominate it for deleation...Magnum Serpentine 00:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Magnum Serpentine instead of nominating it for deletion I think it would be more constructive for you to contribute to the article and let your contributions stand up with articles, facts and figures that are verifiable (and I would hope non-pejorative). Leonardo - I am at a loss explaining to you that for all practical reasons the WAGF = the Assemblies of God and the Assemblies of God = the WAGF. Why? Because the other groups are so small in comparison and because they came AFTER what is today generally known as the "Assemblies of God" (founded in 1914):

• The Assemblies of God International Fellowship was founded in 1922 per their own website (not 1911) [9]
• The International Assemblies of God Fellowship was founded in 1918 [10]
• The Independent Assemblies of God International was founded in 1935 [11]
• The United Pentecostal Council of the Assemblies of God Incorporated was founded between the years of 1919 and 1920 [12]

The WAGF is a relatively new phenomenon and one that is not readily known even by Assemblies of God adherents. I challenge you to ask people who are familiar with the Assemblies of God and ask them if they use the name "World Assemblies of God Fellowship" or "Assemblies of God." I can almost guarantee that they will simply say "Assemblies of God" and by saying so they mean what you and I know as the "World Assemblies of God Fellowship." Or, alternatively, perform a Google search of "World Assemblies of God Fellowship" versus "Assemblies of God" and take note of the search results. I guarantee that the vast majority of the "Assemblies of God" results are talking about entities affiliated with the WAGF and those that are WAGF have references to just "Assemblies of God." In the end, there is no need for disambiguation and article splitting between the various fellowships that have the name "Assemblies of God." Furthermore, I think I was the first one to even reference the WAGF in this article when the statistics were being disputed last year (see above and [13]). Before then the article only mentioned the "Assemblies of God."

Is there a need for making up a category for just "the General Council of the Assemblies of God USA." There may be. But it will open the door for "general councils" all over the world and fellowships affiliated with the WAGF. By doing so, you are laying the seed for even more Assemblies of God oriented articles on Wikipedia. Again, this is because the WAGF is huge - the size of many countries. And because it, along with other Pentecostal groups, is growing at a staggering rate - beyond the population growth rate in many countries. For instance, from 1990 to 2006, Assemblies of God (WAGF) adherents in Africa grew from 2.14 million to 13.3 million (521%) [14]. Given these facts, I'm sure those in the WAGF would not mind more online readership and traffic heading in their direction. Danny "dj" Morales 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The article as it is now is so hard to understand that I have no clue where to begin. The best way to approrach this would be to wipe it clean and start totally over. And leave all the links out. Wikipedia is not a Link Supermarket. Magnum Serpentine 17:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've found this article, besides being a mess, too much US-centered. Many AG denominations, such the Brazilian, is older and bigger, than the US General Council. Also the name "Assembly of God" has been used by many congregations since 1907, which most (but not all) became affiliated with the General Council. Here in New Zealand besides the Assemblies of God in New Zealand there are three independent groups which uses this name: the Samoan Assemblies of God (not affiliated with the AGNZ, but indirectly in fellowship with the WAGF); the Brazilian Assemblies of God (not affiliated with the AGNZ, but indirectly in fellowship with the WAGF); and the Scandinavian-funded Assemblies of God (not affiliated with the AGNZ, neither with the WAGF). I vote for a more simple, neat, neutral entry. --OrleaNZ 19:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this article needs an urgent reformulation, a new simpler one for the Assemblies of God (USA) should be made and keep this one for disambiguation for the other groups in North America and abroad.--Alumbrado07 3:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the last point, I'll start the article for the Assemblies of God (USA). For the record, the General Council of the Assemblies of God of Brazil was founded in 1930 [15]. Yes, Daniel Berg and Gunnar Vingren started their work prior to 1914, but we are talking about organizational not individual works. If we want to discuss Assemblies of God at the individual level, most (not all) of the roads lead to the United States and the Pentecostal outpouring at the turn of the last century 1906, 1901 and even earlier. AG co-founders such as Berg, Vingren, Valdez (NZ/AUS), Wigglesworth (NZ, AUS, CAN) to name just a few, were all influenced by the revival in the United States (the first three came from the United States). This is why it is hard to separate the Assemblies of God from the United States. The two are intimately connected. However, thanks to the AG's indigenous missions vision (explained above) and the fact that several non-U.S. representatives were in attendance in Hot Springs Arkansas in 1914, the movement has been simultaneously non-U.S. as well. As a side note, it is well-known that the AG's largest growth is happening outside the United States and it will not be too long before AG missionaries are sent from other countries to the United States [16]. However, the AG is still holding its own in the U.S. as the tenth largest fellowship [17] and fastest growing [18] (an amazing fact given that the General Council does not have a door-to-door missions strategy). OrleaNZ's - you bring up some great points. The AGNZ, Samoan, and Brazilian are all ethnic-based fellowships in New Zealand. The same phenomenon exists in the United States but on an even larger scale (Latin, Hmong, Indonesian, Sub-Continental Indian, Native American, Slavic, Deaf, Black (African-American), Korean, African, Samoan, Tongan, German to name a few). These are full-fledged fellowships, with staffs, missionaries, churches, and separate funding and all are headquartered within the United States. But, they all have one thing in common. When you ask adherents what fellowship they are a part of, they will simply say "Assemblies of God" and by that they mean they are a part of the WAGF [19]. And they are all correct in saying so. Interestingly, when you go to the other fellowships with "Assemblies of God" in their name they always put their complete name. Not so with fellowships affiliated the WAGF, they frequently use just "Assemblies of God." For these reasons, and those listed above, it makes NO sense to disambiguate the WAGF from the Assemblies of God. They are one and the same.

Magnum Serpentine - (by the way I'm curious what does Magnum Serpentine mean?), you're right about it being confusing. This partly comes with the Wikipedia territory. This article has seen constant revisions by people who have their facts wrong/misconstrued, don't include references, or are approaching the article from a POV that is negative towards the Assemblies of God (just look at the discussion above). I don't think it a stretch to say that the Assemblies of God is hated and envied by many who have the liberty to come and edit the article to sway it towards their POV. For the longest time, the only quality in this article has been the external links to verifiable articles that truly give the reader an understanding into the movement. Also, I can tell you with absolute certainty that it had the most comprehensive listing of national fellowships to be found anywhere in the world. That is huge. The surrounding article changed dramatically (and forever will with questionable content), but the links and references largely remained constant.Danny "dj" Morales 23:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Created and merged the Assemblies of God (USA) with the article "General Council of the Assemblies of the United States." Both names are in agreement with the AG's own website [20].Danny "dj" Morales 01:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's disambiguation article: On deciding to disambiguate, ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? The article that presently exists fits this definition, is less U.S.-centered, and employs Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Disambiguation templates and guidelines. On a side note (belaboring my point), when people use English acronyms to discuss bodies affiliated with the WAGF they use "AG" or "AOG," both of which stand for "Assemblies of God." A minor point, but one that underscores the fact that WAGF = Assemblies of God and Assemblies of God = WAGF. The major point is that when readers enter in "Assemblies of God," I bet the vast majority of them are expecting to see bodies affiliated with the WAGF.Danny "dj" Morales 03:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the article now is better, less US-centered and more internationalized, although the number of 52 million members is disputed by missionologists and statistians, and therefore it needs more research.--OrleaNZ 17:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Church statistics will always be a bone of contention and area of great uncertainty. The numbers cited in this article may be as close to a verifiable number as we are going to get. They come from the Center for the Study of Global Christianity [21] at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. They are also reflected in their World Christian Database [22]. As background, Gordon-Conwell has been led by trustees and presidents such as Billy Graham, Anne Graham Lotz, and Charles Colson. It is hardly a mouthpiece for the AOG. Their numbers are actually less than those claimed by the AOG (approximately 54.7 million [23]). The number seems to hover around 50 million as is even attested to by neutral sites such as adherents.com that rely on multiple sources [24]. Public policy organizations such as the Pew Forum are also tracking the growth of the AOG, as well as other Pentecostal groups, and report interesting findings in several countries [25]. As unbelievable as it may sound, the actual numbers of adherents may be greater than even the AOG is officially reporting. There are two main reasons for this: 1. the fellowship is active in as many as 46 "restricted countries" [26], where reporting presents great difficulty due to political reasons and 2. the 275,000 congregations include "preaching points" and "outstations" [27] where reporting presents great difficulty due to logistical reasons (e.g., read how the Philippine AG was formed through these remote congregations [28]). Is there any way you can cite the missionologists and statisticians who dispute the numbers? - thanks.Danny "dj" Morales 05:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you are familiar with scholarly research, but there are many things to be taken into consideration. I'm familiar with the CGC at Gordon-Conwell Seminary, which has a reputation by its own, but as far as I know either Billy Graham, Anne Graham Lotz, or Charles Colson, has any degree or at least published research on Science of religion, missionmetrics, statistics, therefore are not authorities on the subject. On time, the database is not theirs, but is based on the work Dr. David Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia, and it is the best work on the field, and I am a constant user of it. However, how Dr.Barrett acknowledges, there is want of many data, and many inaccuracies, which is natural for a monumental subject as Christianity is. One reason for the inflaction of the WAGF numbers is that it is assumed that the Brazilian AG has 22 million members, while scholarly and Brazil's census gives 3.5 millions for the WAGF affiliated work there. If you draw the data from the World Christian Encyclopedia for the AGs, you'll find a lower number than 50 millions. I'm making a table with every AG national work, to post on the article. Altough being a fourth-generation AG member, I try to be unbiased in order to know more my church how it is. Sincerely --OrleaNZ 04:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am familiar with research protocol, that is why I asked you for references. For instance, whoever put the dispute tag should have cited a reference along with their dispute. I mentioned the three above, not because they are behind the numbers (Dr. Barrett's), but because they are behind the organization that disseminates them. My point is that the numbers do not come directly from the AG, and CGC stands behind them enough to promulgate them. These numbers are now in the mainstream. As the son of someone who used to work for the U.S. Census Bureau, I would caution people about putting much faith in census numbers when it comes specifically to both political and religious constituencies. After all, according to census numbers there are many self-described "Jedi" knights and adherents around the world. So many variables make Census numbers in these two areas bad indicators. What constitutes an adherent? What questions are being asked? Official members vs. attendants? Do the numbers take into account children? How do they take into account faiths and families that span each other? Are their socio-political pressures for people not to report their adherence (e.g. religious persecution has historically been strong against Pentecostals in Latin America)? Are there people who claim their ancestral faith over their actual faith? What about new converts (and there are many - what do they claim)? If I am really serious about finding out how many people are say in a political party, I am going to go to their registrar (the party rolls) and their comptroller. The same applies to religious constituencies. Follow their resources and understand the checks and balances (i.e. in the AG at the local, sectional, regional, district, council, and international level). As someone who is well-versed in AG government, I can tell you that it makes no sense for general councils in any country to inflate their numbers. So many resource decisions made at all levels depend upon verifiable numbers from local congregations. The numbers drive Bible school development, missionary emphases, literature dissemination, financial loans, insurance, internationally-sponsored missions projects, church position-postings and intangibles like speaking itineraries. Within the last couple years, the AG in the United States has repeatedly emphasized that there is a leadership and church/Bible School construction crisis in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The growth in adherents has literally outpaced the ability for the general councils to train leaders, equip them (say with literature), and build churches and Bible Institutes. These are all good indicators that the numbers reported by the general councils are close. I'll go back to my original point, the numbers cited here may be the best we'll get for now. The following articles may prove insightful if for nothing else: Africa's Hope, The Secret of Accelerating and Lasting Growth, Tremendous Growth in Latin American Churches, and Brazil's Surging Spirituality. Danny "dj" Morales 11:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The article " Brazil's Surging Spirituality " seems to contradict the WMAG relatories by giving 12 million members forn the AGs in Brazil. My knowledge on the AGs in Brazil limits to a personal contact with a CGADB missionary here and some general articles where the AG in Brazil is mentioned, but I am pretty sure that the name "Assemblies of God" is a generic name for classic pentecostals in Brazil, similar to the Church of God usage in the USA. Some are calvinistic others arminian, most of them are trinitarian, but there are some Oneness ASsemblies of God there, some has a episcopal church polity, others are extremely congrationalist. Anyway, the national AGs table in on its way, and we'll see the results soon.--OrleaNZ 19:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. You are correct in saying that the CTI article cites 12 million and that the "Assemblies of God" is a broad term in Brazil (not so in the U.S. and for most of the world). My point in citing the article was not to yield any definitive information - just more insight. The article is almost seven years old. Given the recorded growth rates and the evangelistic zeal of individual members, the numbers across evangelical lines are sure to have multiplied. But beyond projected growths, the general councils around the world themselves are reporting their recorded adherence to bodies such as the Assemblies of God World Missions department [29]. These hard numbers are what I was referring to above. Just ask your CGADB missionary contact what his/her general council is reporting. Interestingly, it has only been within the last two years that the Assemblies of God (USA) has reported world adherence at over 50 million. Danny "dj" Morales 07:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide Adherence

OrleaNZ: I like the table you made (why I reverted the article to include it), but where did you get the numbers from? There is no citation. The AGWM Research Office collects reports from the national general councils around the world as a part of their worldwide adherence calculations. As I mentioned above, these numbers drive many resource and coordination decisions. AOG Superintendents and missions executives around the world rely upon them. The AGWM Research Office can be contacted to discuss their collection and research methodologies [30].Danny "dj" Morales 09:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Danny "dj" Morales, as you see the table is still on construction. The data has been drawn mostly by crossing from Barret's "World Christian Encyclopedia" and the official World Fellowship of Assemblies of God listing of affiliated organizations, (when using different source it will be indicated).

I work closely with the AGWM and its Asia-Pacific divison, collecting and sending them information about the NZ. We try to be the most accurate possible, but in many places (such in Africa and Latin America) missionaries and local executive officers "guesstimate" their numbers, not of bad faith, but by lacking basic statistical and organizational training.

As an example, taking the Brazilian AG, which I'm becoming more acquainted lately, they don't have a national directory of congregation, nothing close to a statistical bureau, neither of membership rolls, except for the ordained ministers roll. The data the Brazilian AG sent to Springfield (and to Barret too) was send by Missionary Terry Johnson, giving 22 millions adherents in 2005, but he doesn't mention how he has reached that number, and as far as we know there had never be a AG internal census there. Also, many denominations usually regarded as AGs in Eastern and Southern Europe, because they keep fraternal fellowship with the America AG, are in fact independent and are not part of the WAGF, such is the case of the Filadelfia Pentecostal Movement of the Scandinavian countries, and many of their affiliated missionary works in the Third World bears the name "Assemblies of God", and most of them has no link whatsoever with the WAGF (which would be contrary to their rigid congregationalist point of view).

There still are many work to be done, but little by little this article shall be nice.--OrleaNZ 22:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Aye, best wishes on the table. As far as Brazil is concerned, I am sure that Missionary Johnson will be glad to answer your questions about the Brazilian A/G adherence if he has not been asked already. He is listed in the AGWM Directory [31]. As far as Europe is concerned, the 2008 World Congress in Portugal should provide some insight as to who is affiliated with the WAGF [32]. For works in Africa, the closest reported numbers from the African Assemblies of God Alliance (AAGA) are available on the Africa Watch website [33]. They are a bit old however ('99-'00). Regional Director McClaflin may be able to answer questions concerning updated AAGA adherence [34]. Take care and Godspeed on your endeavors.Danny "dj" Morales 14:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs (Revisited)

The beliefs section is a bit poor, it reads like propoganda for the denomination, and not a serious encyclopedia article. The statement of beliefs or truths of the AOG is similar to that of most protestant churches. Surely a better way would be to highlight the key differences. If no-one has any objections i'll make the changes...however, I wanted to see what the general feeling was first.Paulrach 23:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I improved the beliefs section, making it more readable. I still need to work on the key differences - but I think this now looks better. Paulrach 20:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"AoG" now in Lao P.D.R. (Laos)

I was astonished to see the fancy new offices of the pentecostal missionaries known as the "Assemblies of God" opening in Luang Phabang, northern Laos.

I would be very interested to know how they managed to obviate the Lao laws against missionary activity.

It's a different story with every group, e.g., the Mormons operating under a codename ("Deseret International") and the Adventists operating English schools, etc.

Some kind of "horse trading" with the Lao government must have gone on --or they must be operating some kind of non-missionary front for their activities here.

More information would be appreciated --either in the Wiki entry or simply on this discussion page. [Unsigned comment by User:202.62.100.68 12:13, 23 July 2007]

Why?

Why is it that the AOG page can have numerous links but the Potter's House Christian Fellowship (which was similar to this one in style only a few weeks back) is only allowed one link now. I think that is religious discrimination.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.131.250 (talk • contribs)

I think maybe the reason is because Nick Sayers can't get along with anyone and is running around complaining and causing all soughts of trouble yet can't discuss the issues with me on the Potter's House talk page, where you should be talking. Why don't you actually use your user:sapienz account so admin can see the trouble you get yourself into.Darrenss 08:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

212 countries?! on what planet?

The intro paragraph says "As of late 2006, the Assemblies of God World Missions Research Office reported constituencies in 212 countries and over 5,000 adherents added per day." There are 192 officially recognised sovereign states, but that number can go up to 194 countries in the world depending on whether or not places such as Taiwan and Palestine are counted as countries (I'm not opening up THAT debate, just making a point). So on what planet is the AoG reporting to have constituencies in 212 countries?!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.56.51.203 (talk) 17:05:18, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

This planet, apparently. The "Facts and Highlights" pdf ([35]) which this statement was taken from says "212 countries and territories (my emphasis). The List_of_countries article has 244 entities, so that gives you something to work on. I've added "and territories" to the opening statement to clarify it.Johnmc 00:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

COGIC?

This article mentions at least three times that the AoG supposedly split off from the Church of God in Christ (COGIC). However, there is no citation for this, and information obtained from ag.org doesn't seem to confirm this interpretation. Particularly since the contributor gives racial tensions as a reason for separation, citation needed in a big way because it's sort of defamatory (unless of course it's actually true). In my experience, the Assemblies are very ethnically diverse and don't seem to have a Big Honkin' Racist Past, but if they do, it's part of their history and we deserve to hear about it (provided of course that it's properly sourced and all that jazz). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.1.57 (talk) 00:11, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Statistics (Revisited)

I agree with comments from above about church numbers. Can someone explain to me how come there are so many statistics on churches that go on unsourced and not verified. I clicked on some of the church links in the table and didn't find any statistics on membership numbers. If AOG are supposed to have millions beside this from the US - http://ag.org/top/about/Statistics/Statistical_Report_2005.pdf where are rest of the statistics?? On the pentacostalism article the claims are around 54 million for AOG <??> someone show me where the stats are please. Is this just boasting or are there real statistics??Darrenss 03:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

See page 20 of this PDF file: http://ag.org/top/about/Statistics/Statistical_Report_2006.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.242.232 (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Although this might not be the right place for a discussion. worldwide membership shows 60 million with 1/2 million in the Philippines. Although, being in the Philippines for 2 years, i never met a single Assemblies of god member. Similiar problems show up in the US. 2.8 million with only 1.4 ever baptized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.105.141 (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

AOG, like many pentecostals, probably don't require baptism for membership. In fact, many of the regular adherents in AOG churches may never have officially become members. 54 million world wide is probably right. Pentecostalism is growing rapidly in 3rd world countries.Ltwin (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That is the difficult part with AOG and pentecostalism; because of missionary work in other countries it is difficult to get accurate counts of membership.--64.90.25.125 (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that there is a wishful exageration on the AG officers about membership. A simple example, in 2000 AG World Missions office claimed 20 million adherents in Brazil (and only God knows how they come up with that number, since in Brazil the AG does not keep membership rolls, not even an offical church directory, nor a statistics office, or make a denominational census) while the official Brazilian Census gave 8 million people claiming membership with pentecostal churches named "Assembly of God", of which only the General Convention of Brazilian Assembly of God (with then 3 million adherents) has any link with the Worldwide AG.

Also, the US AG counts as members churches that they have informal fellowship, as the Pentecostal (Filadelfia) Movement in Sweden, but talking to a Swedish pentecostal he seemed surprised to be called as part of the AG, because in America their work (Fellowship of Christian Assemblies) has not part with the General Council of the Assemblies of God. --Leonardo Alves (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree there seems to be confusion. I'm not sure about the 60 million worldwide, I believe it but besides the A/G I don't have any other sources to back it up. However, I have seen other sources that agree with the US A/G of their membership such as [36]. Perhaps we should say something like "the A/G officially claims 60 million but others estimate blah blah blah"? Unsigned comment by User:Ltwin 17:22, 10 March 2009]

tylerfirst.com

With regards to this article briefly being tagged as a copyvio of http://www.tylerfirst.com/assemblies.php - I am attempting to get in contact with someone at tylerfirst.com to explain their obligations with regards to the GFDL if they wish to reuse Wikipedia articles. --Stormie (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – I have exchanged emails with someone at tylerfirst.com and they have removed the Wikipedia content from their site (I didn't ask them to remove it, just to abide by the GFDL and not claim copyright over Wikipedia content, but I guess they thought this was easier). --Stormie (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

External links section

This whole section is a gross violation of Wikipedia policies at WP:EL and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. I propose that it be deleted in its entirety, with the exception of the first link which seems to be a directory listing. —Moondyne 00:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless anyone has any strong objections I'll be deleting these in a couple of days. —Moondyne 12:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Moondyne: please do not delete as I am waiting for AG webservices to update their fraternal listing. As a point of clarification, this list does not grossly violate the policies as stated because this external list is not "a directory of everything that exists or has existed," because it has never existed outside of Wikipedia in the first place. It does not fall under "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics," because the links are to entities that are closely associated with the topic. It does not fall under "directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business," because the fraternal organizations are not businesses. Neither does it fall under the category of "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations," because it is not a cross-category listing - it's an intertopic list. The other categories do not even come close. We are talking about a worldwide yet very loose organization that has unique and indigenous partners (the World Assemblies of God Fellowship). There is no WAGF headquarters site and no one country's fellowship owns the market on its definition. The only way to best represent these diverse entities and provide for continued on-topic research in the space provided is to provide links to their sites. Thus, the links are relevant, accurate and by definition on-topic as stated in WP:EL. Once the US site gets up to date, we can point to it.Danny "dj" Morales (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Danny, I think you're taking a selective interpretation of the policy, and certainly the retention of the links here is not in the spirit of the policy. But I'll hold off with the hope that the link directory you mention comes online in the near future. You may wish to look at the Open Directory Project which is purpose built for this type of thing and allows descriptions and further categorisation of links. See [37]. The WP article could point to that. Unlike us however, the DMOZ project uses moderators to approve links before they go into the directory - if this is an area of interest to you, you may wish to get involved there as they are always looking for new editors. Good luck. —Moondyne 00:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Priesthood of all beleivers

Please stop refering to any of our church leaders as Pastor or Reverend. This is not the Catholic or Anglican church - we do not need ranks - our reward will not be in this life. When the spirit of the Lord is with us, we may all take the lead in our church. This has always been at the heart of the Assemblies of God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.109.164 (talk) 02:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I've moved this comment to the bottom of the page, which is where new comments and discussions begin. If the church does not recognize any titles, please provide a reference for that fact and it can be worked into the page properly. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 02:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The Assemblies certainly recognizes and emphasizes the "Five Fold Ministry" as outlined in Ephesians 4:11-13: the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers. Ordained ministers in the fellowship and in leadership positions within local church bodies are called "pastors" and are generally addressed as "Pastor ... ". That said, laity, non-ordained ministers, Christian workers, teachers, visiting evangelists, missionaries, and other lay workers in the local assemblies are often addressed as "Brother ..." or "Sister ...". See the official web site for some general information on the leadership structure and other related matters, and this page which contains reference materials that address AofG ministerial credentials and ordination. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 04:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The Assemblies understands and affirms the priesthood of all believers. There is no "priestly class" within the Assemblies. However, leaders of churches are identified as such by titles. Pastor, signifying the shepherd-like duties of a church's leader, is probably the most appropriate term and is certainly not inappropriate, in my opinion and my experience. Still, identifying leaders as shepherds (pastors) does not negate the priesthood to which we are all entitled as believers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.242.232 (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Assemblies of God of Great Britain (or whatever they're called) certainly uses titles. In the UK, a minister of religion has special legal responsibilities (eg they can officiate at wedding, authorise identity etc.). Therefore any minister accredited by the AOG is entitled to use Reverend. Many who I know use (and have known) use Pastor. Personally, I don't like the use of such titles however, in the UK where they are culturally accepted their use can be useful.Paulrach (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Scandals

There has been vandalism on attempted removal of this section. It is a legitimate section with references. [Unsigned comment by User:HelloThereNow 05:01, 7 March 2008]

Is this section really related to the AOG? Are the acts of four individuals really representative of a denomination with many millions of members? I agree that if this was an article solely about Jimmy Swagert et al, then they should be included. However, I suspect that their inclusion is more an act of the usual anonymous individuals seeking to cause a bit of mischief. Paulrach (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There were AOG leaders. They were representive of the organization. They were raised millions of dollars for the organization.

A frequent element of major AOG scandals is stonewalling, and often a cover-up is involved, which in some cases can even lead to formal criminal charges of obstruction of justice or perjury. In many cases, the "damage control" denials and other deception involved in efforts to "cover up" a scandal became themselves more scandalous, and more damaging to careers, than the underlying problem.

I suspect that their deletion/ censorship/ cover up is more an act of the usual anonymous individuals seeking to hide all negative information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.84.126.167 (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

A bit of a hypocritical comment...considering it was unsigned. As I suggested initially, the scandals are the responsibility of the individuals not the organisation. Why is it that people feel a church organisation should be held responsible and reviled for a few errant members and not, say, a political organisation. Should we add Bill Clinton's failings to the page of the Democratic Party? Of course not, and there would be considerable outrage and discussion if it were. So user 69.84.126.167, two things: be fair in your comments about any organisation not just the AoG. And have the courage to admit who you are, and hide behind annonimity. Paulrach (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

These are the faces of AOG. These are the people on TV raising money for the organizations:

Jimmy Swaggart

Jimmy Swaggart Sex scandals - Assemblies of God leader Jimmy Swaggart was caught with a prostitute before withdrawing from the denomination. [38], [39] 1987, Jimmy Swaggart photographed with a prostitute outside the Travel Inn in Lake Charles.[40]

Jim Bakker

Jim Bakker Sex scandals, Financial scandals, Rape allegations - Assemblies of God leader Jim Bakker paid his secretary Jessica Hahn $279,000 from church funds to keep quiet regarding his sexual encounter with her. Bakker was indicted in 1988 on 8 counts of mail fraud, 15 counts of wire fraud and 1 count of conspiracy.

Frank Houston

Frank Houston Pedophilia, Homosexual, Child Sex Scandals - Assemblies of God leader Frank Houston confessed that he had engaged in paedophile sexual activities with a teenage boy while ministering in New Zealand some thirty years earlier. [41]

Morris Cerullo

Morris Cerullo has been indicted by a Grand Jury for IRS fraud. His ministry has been under investigation for years by the government for his fund raising practices. John Paul Warren, a former Senior Executive with Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (MCWE) has filed a lawsuit claiming he was ousted from the MCWE organization after confronting Cerullo about "unethical and fraudulent fund-raising techniques." This is the second such lawsuit against Cerullo .[42]

PS Put whatever you want about Bill Clinton on the Democratic party page. Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating, the highest end-of-presidency rating of any President who came into office after World War II. [Unsigned comment by User:HelloThereNow 17:12, 21 March 2008]

If you want to discuss the exploits of four individuals, do so on articles about those individuals. I personally would say that these four raised money for themselves and their own churches and NOT the AOG. This article is about the AOG. If you wish to discuss these four characters why not include them in a separate article on Scandals in the Church, along with all of the other ministers from the wide range of denominiations who have shown all too human characteristics, and have fallen from grace. And if you wnat to point out about these four making money for the AOG do so very carefully. I would suggest that the coffers of many other denominations have been filled by equally human leaders... What about the Catholic Church? The Baptists? The church of England?

This article is not perfect. But is what you are doing balanced and unbiased? If you want to talk about scandals what about also talking about all the positive things that the AoG is doing, the feeding programmes in Colombia, the orphanages in the Philipines?

And why not have the manners and curtesy to sign yourself?Paulrach (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In connection with my previous posting, all of the above individuals are discussed in this article that I have found this link Christian televangelist scandals. It should be noted that other than Frank Houston, I can't find evidence that the other three were actively involved in church/congregation based ministries, rather their work was para-church or itinerant. This type of work has always been seen as problematic due to the lack of accountability to any type of oversight. It should be noted that once the scandals of Bakker and Swaggart became known they had their ministerial credentials revoked, albeit rather feebly in the case of Swaggart...but that was the '80s, I'm not sure what would happen now.Paulrach (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to clearly state that I am an Assemblies of God minister--and have in my possession every OFFICIAL list of Assemblies of God ministers and missionaries since 1992. Morris Cerullo IS NOT an Assemblies of God minister. so, I edited what was scribed here with an OFFICIAL source (not a resource) proving this. JIMMYLINE —Preceding unsigned comment added by JIMMYLINE (talk • contribs) 03:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I deleted Cerullo yesterday because he was not a member of the AG. After checking other encyclopedia entries for other organizations I am more convinced that the scandals have little or no place on this page. I agree with Paulrach concerning his Bill Clinton: Democratic Party comments. With organizations as large as these churches or political parties if we got bogged down in the scandals of individuals we waste our time. Also, judging from the argument made by those responding negatively to the comments by Paulrach this issue doesn’t seem to be unbiased.

I believe that an unbiased page would not include the prominent Scandals info. I'll edit tonight to make it more unbiased. epecho ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epecho (talk • contribs) 03:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That edit makes sense...I wish I'd thought of doing it that way. There just seemed to be too much bias in the way it was initially written...also it was pretty poorly written at that. RegardsPaulrach (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I initially added the comment and source proving Morris Cerrello was NOT an AG minister (I am an ordained Assemblies of God minister and have every directory from the past decade and more). I did not delete his name because I did no add it--and was not too sure as to who added/why he was added, and did not feel it was in my place to do so. I am thankful he was removed--as he has had NO formal connections with the Assemblies of God other than being friends with a few well known AG ministers. At any rate--I was not objecting to the Scandals section. It was a part of our well-known history and the ministers (Swaggart, Bakker) kind of put the AG on the "map." It was in a negative sense--but it still put us on the map. --Jim Line (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I see "Scandals" as being a legitimate section, perhaps renamed as "Problems", etc, to be more encompassing. BTW, AofG ministers are not a good source for material on this article. ULTIMATE POV conflict. --98.232.180.37 (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why Is There A Tone Warning?

The top of the article has a warning that the tone of the article is inappropriate. Scanning the article I can't see any serious tone problems. Is this a holdover from a previous version of the article that has since been corrected, or is there something I'm missing? Glen Davis (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The article was in a pretty dire state when I made my first edits. The section on beliefs, for instance, read like it had been written by a school kid. At the moment it still has rather a lot of external links. Also it recently had a lot of sock puppet vandalism. However, it is looking in reasonable shape at the moment but I'm not sure what is needed to remove the notice...other than just doing it of course. Paulrach (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and delete the warning, then. I assume that's the right way to do it. Edit boldly and whatnot, eh? :) Glen Davis (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Church of God In Christ

Charles Mason of the COGIC did ordain and give credentials to the founding ministers in the Assemblies of God, they broke fellowship with the COGIC because of Jim Crow Laws in the South, here is the citation: Burgess, Stanley M. Encyclopedia of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity. Routledge encyclopedias of religion and society. New York: Routledge, 2006. DJ Black Adam 22:22, 15 August 2008

Beliefs section

This doesn't need to be in this article! I don't think the Wall Street Journal knows the first thing about the AoG or Pentecostalism in general. Yes, they do believe in speaking in tongues, but so do millions of other Charismatic Christians around the world. Its a fairly common belief. Also, this qoute contradicts the AoG's on doctrinal statement reproduced in this article. The AoG believes, like other Evangelical Protestant churches that the end times occur after the rapture of the church. As there doesn't seem to be a mass exodus of Christians from the world I think its pretty safe to say that the AoG aren't professing that we are in the end times yet, as that would mean they aren't Christians.Ltwin (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am no fan of the POV often found in the Wall Street Journal (their eithics is based entirely on greed, similar to Ayn Rand). But in this case, The Wall Street Journal is making a sociological statement based on population statistics. It is not a theological judgment, nor any kind of value judgement. If there were a hundred million members, this would still be a small minority among Christian overall. The size of a church's membership has nothing whatsoever to do with its quality. Note also that Ed Kalnins at Wasilla Assembly of God has made specific statement about end times being at hand, and expected very soon, as documented in that church's article. Tautologist (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

1. It is a theological judgement. These beliefs such as speaking in tongues are found in all Christian denominations including Roman Catholicism and the Southern Baptist for goodness sake. Renewalists, Pentecostals and Charismatics, are called the "Third Force of Christianity" after Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and Pentecostalism is the fastest growing segment of Christianity. This is not a small minoroty in world Christianity including the US. The largest black denomination in the US is a Pentecostal church, the Church of God in Christ and the largest white denomination the, the US branch of the Assemblies of God, has 1 million members. This is membership comparable to The Episcopal Church and other mainline denominations.
2. Ed Kalnin's is not a leader in the Assemblies of God or the Pentecostal movement. He pastors an obscure church in Alaska. Yes the Assemblies of God believes the rapture of the church can happen at anytime in the future, possibly in our lifetimes, but so do Southern Baptists and other Protestant Evangelicals. The only thing wierd is that he believes Alaska will have a role in the Tribulation, which everyone outside of his congregation could care less. If it wasn't for Palin no one would even hear of this wacky belief. By placing this in the article, it gives the impression that they really are wierd, but for the most part the thing that mainly separates them from other Evangelicals is speaking in tongues.Ltwin (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ltwin's assessment, although from my perspective as a non-Charismatic. Some of my best friends are Charismatics. ;-) Jclemens (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal did not say anything was weird (it is spelled "ei", its i after e, except after c, unless its weird, or except when it is not i after e). They were making a statistical statement, with their intent being to write articles that help them sell newspapers to people who are mostly cocerned about money as the purpose in their life, who don't care much for content beyond statistics to help them make money. But their facts are pretty reliable, if you don't interpret them as value judgements. Tautologist (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

PS, I agree with your edit, too, as all that is needed is a belief section about speaking in tongues (I used to do it, but it was just gibberish, not another language), and a statement of membership numbers and growth rate. Anyone wanting to compare church population numbers with another church can pick any other church and then do it. I suspect that it all WSJ did when they wrote their story. Tautologist (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC) population statement

I think the beliefs section was needed. Also, whats up with all the AofG ministers editing this article? MASSIVE POV conflict. Come on, people. --98.232.180.37 (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There already is a beliefs section. This was about having information from a particular newspaper article included. Ltwin (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

The term "Aggressive mission" sounds like a subjective evaluation of the Church's evangelical programme. Is this a fact? 613kpiggy (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The word was removed.Ltwin (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Gay is never mentioned anywhere

Who the hell wrote this article? A churchgoer? One of AofG's main cornerstones is homophobia. This is never mentioned anywhere in the article. I'm adding it to that category. --98.232.180.37 (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. If you look at the Homophobia Category, you will see the following: This category contains articles that discuss or refer to the topic of homophobia. It does not imply that the subjects of any biographical articles are homophobic. It goes on to say This category is for issues relating to homophobia, including organizations or individuals that are particularly noted for being involved in the subject of homophobia. It is not intended for groups or individuals who have made homophobic remarks and related actions but are not considered widely known for their homophobic stances. Since the A of G article does not "discuss or refer to the topic of homophobia", it is totally inappropriate to categorize it as such. I see no evidence that the AofG is "particularly noted for being involved in the subject of homophobia". Someone asserting that "one of AofG's main cornerstones is homophobia" does not make it so - we would require reliably sourced proof. Now - if you wish to add neutral, reliably sourced, and verifiable information about the fellowship's supposed or presumed official homophobia and homophobic teachings, then feel free to do so, and then perhaps we can consider such a categorization. But Homophobia and outright condemnation of homosexuality does not appear in any of the official church literature or linked sources I've seen, although some of the independent Pastoral Leadership and certain Evangelists might preach about it to their flock from time to time (or worse - on TV). Keep in mind that using unsubstantiated claims from Gay/Lesbian/Transsexual web sites and blog pages would not constitute reliable sourcing. And just because a church or fellowship might preach opposition to extramarital-sex and same-sex marriage does not make it by definition homophobic. Otherwise you would have to categorize virtually all Christian, Jewish, and Islamic sects as homophobic, rather than picking out one Christian organization. This is clearly a POV issue, not an article content, categorization, or even a tone issue. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 22:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree as T-dot said. While the Assemblies and other conservative Christian groups would oppose gay marriage most woould not come at it from a "we hate gays and lesbians" but from an "the Bible is the word of God and the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, therefore, we must call it what the Bible calls it" point of view. Granted there are some extreme groups out there who frame it in a hateful way, but generally the Assemblies would take the point of condemning the sin, as they see it, but loving the sinner. The entire denomination couldn't be generally labeled homophobic, unless by homophobic you mean opposing gay marriage and believing that homosexual acts are wrong. I think thats a pretty broad definition of homophobia given the fact that the Assemblies would never and have never sanctioned harming or terrorizing homosexuals.Ltwin (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure you meant homophobia where I've emboldened. But other than that I 100% agree with your comments. Purely objecting to homosexual activity isn't the generally accepted definition of homophobia. MarkyMarkD (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

yes that is what I meant. Ive changed it. :) Ltwin (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Purely objecting to homosexual activity isn't the generally accepted definition of homophobia. Wait. What? "This category is for issues relating to homophobia, including organizations or individuals that are particularly noted for being involved in the subject of homophobia." Assemblies of God is NOTORIOUSLY homophobic. Ltwin you should know this, hell, you're a member. Now... the article needs to mention homophobia. Stop using the bible to try and argue that homophobia is okay. Are you racists, too? You guys have some pretty piss-poor arguments. --98.232.180.37 (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I'm not a member. I'm not using the Bible, one reason because this has nothing to do with the Bible and another reason because the Bible doesn't say homophobia is right. You could actually say that it says its not "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," "In Christ there is niether Greek nor Jew, male nor female" etc.... The fact is A/G is not known as being homophobic. It believes that all sex outside of marriage is sin. Therefore all heterosexual and homosexual sex outside of wedlock is sin, there concept of marriage is that it is between one man and one woman, therefore to them homosexual sex is always a sin because they don't recognize homosexual marriage. They don't hate homosexuals-which would be the definition of homophobia. They believe that acting on sexual thoughts of a person of the same sex is a sin, just like acting on sexual thoughts with a person of the opposite sex, who you are not married to, is sin. They have never said they hate homosexuals. Ltwin (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

PS:Please read Wikipedia:assume good faith. No one is accusing you of negative motives so please don't do it to us. Define "notoriously." "So you have a choice. Include it, or it can be in the category." Actually, we don't have a choice. If the A/G is not known for being homophobic then it's disengenuous for us to include it in the article, and if homophobia is not mentioned in the article there is no reason for it to be in the category. This is some friendly advice. Comments like "And Ltwin, you can't see the forest for the trees, so don't attempt to," and "Are you racists, too?" wont get you far here. Ltwin (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, known problem Scientologists are now banned from editing the Scientology article die to POV conflicts. Assemblies of God followers on here (who've basically controlled all aspects of the Assemblies of God article) ought to take notice. Oh, and Ltwin, you'd be surprised. ^_~ --98.232.181.201 (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

False. IPs operated by the Church of Scientology organization as well as specific editors have been topic banned from Scientology articles, including many individuals who heavily criticize the Church of Scientology (such as Keith Henson). The vast majority of Scientologists are able to edit any Scientology article (assuming they follow WP:ARBSCI, which everyone has to); it may be classified as illegal under US anti-discrimination laws for Scientologists in particular to be banned from Scientology articles based on their religion. Sorafune +1 04:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks for that warning, but I'm not a member of the AG and I'm not controlling this article. Everyone who has commented on this discussion has agreed that your understanding of homophobia is different than what is normally understood as homophobia. The AG is not against homosexuals, what they are against is the homosexual lifestyle which they see as unbiblical. What you want Wikipedia to do is to make anyone or any entity who disagrees with a lifestyle to be labeled practicers of hatespeeach and violence. That is not the case with the AG. The AG has an opinion, that it does not support the homosexual lifestyle, that is not the same as preaching hate. Ltwin (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: Please read WP:NPOV which details Wikipedia's policy dictating that articles are to be written without bias. You also may be interested in looking at two other policies: WP:V, which in short says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true" (emphasis added in original), and WP:NOR, which in short says "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." These three principles make up Wikipedia's three core content policies. Ltwin (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientologists have been banned from editing the scientology article due to repeated unobjective conflict. Perhaps that ought to happen with this article. At the end of the day, you'd have a better article.--98.232.181.201 (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Pacifism

Though Ltwin has made some good editorial decisions here, I question the decision to remove all mention of the Assemblies of God as a former peace church from the page and as a church that currently allows its members to act according to conscience in this regard. A denomination's stance on war is one of its most notable features. People who can tell you nothing else about Quakers, for example, can tell you they're pacifists. Assuming that there were general councils with headquarters outside the US by 1967, then it may make sense to relegate extended discussion of the decision to amend the US General Council's bylaws to the article on that GC. But to fail to mention that the Assemblies of God was a peace church in the beginning simply because it was US-based at the time, makes about as much sense as failing to mention that the Assemblies of God was founded in Arkansas. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree for the most part. The reason I moved it was because it seemed the information was referring solely to the US body. Everything referred to the General Council, I didn't think it was a good idea to make this article US centric as has been complained of in the past. If pacifism was a shared belief in all/most A/G bodies then sure it merits mention here. Ltwin (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the answer then is, as is often the case, to find more/better sources. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So should we include a mention that early in its history the Assemblies was a peace church and leave it at that for now? Ltwin (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm really glad you're here though. Reading the article, what do you think are the strengths ans weaknesses? What can be improved? For instance, I think the Beliefs section needs a lot of work. Needs to be more prose instead of list form to me. Ltwin (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Too many external links

While I can sort of understand the inclusion of every single Assemblies of God organization, there are some external links that don't need to be in this section. Its turning into a link farm. I'm not touching the Assemblies of God links becuase I'd like to know what others think but I am going through the list and taking some of these links out. Ltwin (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sixteen Fundamental Truths

In answer to Ltwin's question, I think the section "Sixteen Fundamental Truths" is problematic for a number of reasons. One is that the article seems to say as a matter of fact that (to use a random example) "sanctification is realized in the believer by recognizing his identification with Christ in His death and resurrection, and by the faith reckoning daily upon the fact of that union, and by offering every faculty continually to the dominion of the Holy Spirit". Wikipedia should be reporting this as something that people believe -- not as something that is. Also, does anyone know the copyright status of the Statement of Fundamental Truths? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtSchumann (talk • contribs) 13:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah this is something to think about. Not sure. Another thing is that this is for the US Assemblies of God, but is this the same doctrinal statement used by other A/G bodies? I know they all agree on doctrine, but I don't know if they all actually subscribe to the fundamental truths or if they have thier own statements. Ltwin (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm converting this list to prose on my sandbox. If anybody wants to help go to User:Ltwin/My Sandbox. Ltwin (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm done converting. Ltwin (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a vast improvement. Making the history section was also a good move. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The History was already there, I just moved it to the top. I did create the Structure section. What do you think about that? Ltwin (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking good. I think the biggest problem with the entry right now is the link repository at the end of the article. I won't be trimming it myself -- at least not for now. I get the impression that there has been a lot of contention over this. But I think we need to think about how we can pare it down. -- SgtSchumann (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Earlier today and currently I'm trimming the links down by placing the links of national AOGs in the Members section that don't have Wiki articles. Once all affiliated AOGs are listed then the external links should be a lot less. Ltwin (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide adherents

This reference World Christian Database, Asia Pacific Mission Office was removed as I coudn't find out how recent this information was. I googled the World Christian Database and found its website, but it seemed to be a subscription based service so I couldn't find out what numbers it reported for the AoG. The sources I've seen have said from 50 to 60 million. Ltwin (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that the "212" countries reference has been changed back to "110". Whereabouts did you get this figure from? I see the reference for this (reference 1)shows the original "212".Johnmc (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, thought the reversion was one of your edits. My bad :-(. It's just that we've had this discussion before. Johnmc (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement of Fundamental Truths

Are the Fundamental Truths the doctrinal statement of the WAGF or is it US specific? If there is an official doctrinal statement for the WAGF itself then that should be used here. However, if the Fundamental Truths are virtually shared by all the Assemblies of God then it really doesn't matter, but if the WAGF has its own statement then that should be used as representative of all the fellowships. Ltwin (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The WAGF now has its own statement of faith availible on its website. Ltwin (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2