Talk:Sword of the Spirit

RFC Abuse Allegations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This RFC concerns whether abuse allegations against Jamie Treadwell should be in the article. Treadwell is a member of Sword of the Spirit (SoS) and, at the time of the alleged abuse, was a member of Servants of the Word (SoW), SoS's celibate brotherhood. Minnesota Public Radio reported that Servants of the Word leadership had received at least 4 reports of Treadwell's abuse before one family's allegations went public towards the end of the 2010s.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Jerome Frank Disciple's draft text

I drafted a potential version of the disputed material above; LinnCDoyle2 expressed agreement with this text; Arbitrarily0 did not. Here is the version:

In January 2020, Michigan Radio reported that it had spoken to two families who had accused a member of Servants of the Word, Jamie Treadwell, of child sexual assault.^[1] At least one of those families had taken their concerns to Servant of the Word leadership, and the group's leadership subsequently admitted to knowing of at least four "similar allegations" concerning Treadwell that had been reported to authorities.^[1] Treadwell cut ties with Servants of the Word in 2019 after an internal investigation, and, in May 2022, he pleaded no contest to attempted criminal sexual conduct—he was sentenced to 14 days in jail and required to register as a sex offender.^[2]

1. Smith, Lindsey (January 30, 2020). "Multiple families accused man "living single for the Lord" of child sexual assault. He's still free". Michigan Radio.
2. Smith, Lindsey (April 13, 2022). "Man investigated by Michigan Radio sentenced to probation, will be on sex offender registry". Michigan Radio.

Factual errors in draft (fixed)

Comment According to the source he did not plead guilty, but only no contest. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 07:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC) @Random person no 362478479: Sorry about that! Having previously worked in a federal court where—somewhat questionably, from my perspective—nolo contendere and Alford pleas weren't tolerated, I guess I just glazed over that detail! I've changed the draft text to address that.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC) Comment On 10 May I corrected several mentions of Minnesota Public Radio to Michigan Radio per the sources. TSventon (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Summary of RFC by LinnCDoyle2

This RFC hopes to settle a disagreement between editors as to the removal of information regarding an abuse case involving a member and branch of the ministry which is the topic of this wiki by @Arbitrarily0:. Any input as to the inclusion or removal of this content from this article is highly appreciated.

@Arbitrarily0: believes the information should be removed. The case made is that:

• sexual abuse cases regarding an organisation or individual do not belong on their wiki
• information regarding the abuse case is 'excessive detail'
• they are unsure of the relevance and notability of the organisation 'servants of the word' or the individual 'jamie treadwell' to the ministry which is the topic of this wiki (sword of the spirit) - though it is noted that @Arbitrarily0: did indeed include servants of the word with their own section in this wiki detailing their relevance to sword of the spirit in previous edits to this page (diff)

@LinnCDoyle2: believes the information should be retained. The case is made that:

• reporting of the case itself is notable
• reporting of the case clearly identifies the abuse as relevant to treadwells role in servants of the word, and provides further detail WRT reporting of abuse to servants of the word, and handling of this reporting.
• treadwell themselves is notable as a member of the servants of the word due to their leadership roles in sword of the spirit (namely director of one international youth outreach within sword of the spirit, founder and director of another international youth outreach within sword of the spirit, mission leader within sword of the spirit).

---

The following sources were included with respect to reporting of the abuse case: MPR Radio 1, MPR Radio 2, MPR Radio 3, The Independant, Belfast Telegraph

The following sources were included to provide illustration of treadwell role as a member of servants of the word within sword of the spirit - though are independent from reporting of the abuse case: Sword of the Spirit website (See pg28 - "Jamie Treadwell is a noted artist who works in pastels, watercolors and acrylics. He is a member of The Servants of the Word, a lay missionary brotherhood of men living single for the Lord, and he is the Regional Youth Program Director of Kairos in Europe and the Middle-East, the international youth program of The Sword of the Spirit."), Sword of the Spirit website 2 (See pg 89 "Jamie Treadwell is a life coach and a noted artist who works in pastels, watercolors and acrylics. He is a member of The Servants of the Word, an ecumenical lay missionary brotherhood of men living single for the Lord, and mission leader in the Sword of the Spirit. He is currently based in London, UK."); Detroit free press october 4th 1998 page 2H

Under the bio for jamie treadwell under 'occupation': "Director of Youth Initiatives, a cross-denominational youth group. Manges 12 full-time staffers and 30 volunteers. One of 40 members of Sword of the Spirit missionary organization active in seven countries". LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@LinnCDoyle2:, I edited your comment just slightly to make it a little easier to read and better align with WP:RFCBRIEF. Obviously feel free to revert.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated. @Jerome Frank Disciple @Arbitrarily0 please feel free to edit my presentation of your cases made also if I have misunderstood anything here. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

!Votes

• Soft include. I provided a WP:3O on this matter and others related to this page. To summarize my comments: I was torn on inclusion of the content. The case would clearly be notable if Wikipedia had articles on Treadwell or Servants of the Word (SoW). But I found that the relevance of Treadwell and SoW leadership to Sword of the Spirit (SoS) was less clear. Both Arbitrarily0 and LinnCDoyle2 made analogies that I didn't find apt—Arbitrarily0 compared the incident to including Kobe Bryant's assault allegations on the NBA page, but the fact that at least part of the controversy involved Servants of the Word leadership made me think this case was distinct; LinnCDoyle2 compared the incident to an abuse scandal involving the Vatican being listed in Catholic Church sexual abuse cases, but here, too, I wasn't sure, since no reliable sources implicated Sword of the Spirit leadership—rather, it was only Servants of the Word leadership that was implicated. My concern was that SoW is equivalent to a mission group or book club that various members of a random church form. But, given the info I've since seen, I'm fairly certain that analogy isn't apt either. SoW does appear, based on secondary sources, to be a prominent group within SoS. I think brief inclusion is mentioned.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the draft - this is similar to what I had included previous to the removal of this content. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• If it can be reliably sourced, I'm all in. Wikipedia isn't censored, and if a controversy can be reliably sourced, it should be included in order to maintain a neutral point of view and written in accordance with due weight to avoid making Wikipedia articles a wall of shame. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the input. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Include. At this point the relevance comes from the reliably sourced claim that the leadership was aware of prior allegations. Otherwise it would only be relevant if we could go beyond calling him a "member". Further information that is not reliably sourced and for which I could not find a reliable source: families of Treadwell's victims have sued the leadership of both Sword of the Spirit and Servants of the Word.[5] Also, according to the Servants of the Word's history page Servants of the Word and Sword of the Spirit merged in 1982.[6] Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the input. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose and correction of my case. My argument has been unfairly represented above. But since !votes have already been cast, let me try to restate it here, and humbly ask the !voters to read this. I very much agree that the Treadwell abuse case is verifiably related to the leadership of the Servants of the Word. But the Servants of the Word is, as far as I understand, a very small member community of the 70+ (?) communities of the Sword of the Spirit. Indeed, the Treadwell case apparently does not involve Sword of the Spirit leadership (unless I'm missing something), but merely leadership of a community within the Sword of the Spirit. If we deem this kind of information relevant and notable, then we've opened the door to making many, many articles into "walls of shame." The Sword of the Spirit, which is a federation of communities, is analogous to a Catholic diocese, which is a federation of parishes. If a member (or even a leader) of a Catholic parish is convicted of abuse, we do not mention such abuse in the article on the parish's diocese unless the leadership/bishop of the diocese (not merely the parish) was somehow involved in neglect, cover-up, etc. Treadwell does not appear to have been a leader of the Servants of the Word (just a leader of various apostolates, like most members appear to be), but even if he was, the Sword of the Spirit leadership seems not to have been involved in his case in any way. He's a criminal who was a member of a huge organization. The edits made by User:Linn C Doyle and User:LinnCDoyle2 are almost exclusively aimed at amassing negative material on pages related to the charismatic renewal; we need to assume good faith and include some of this material, but we also need to draw sensible limits, and I think this is one. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 06:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  I am still not quite sure what exactly the relationship between the two organisations is. But I've taken a look at their respective leaderships. Of the eight members of the Executive Council of Sword of the Spirit three are Elders (members of the leadership) of Servants of the Word: the Executive Secretary Richard Perry, David Mijares, and Dave Quintana who is the Presiding Elder of Servants of the Word.[7][8] I keep my vote at include. I concede that it is not a case where I think it has to be in the article under all circumstances (although I suspect that that is only because of a lack of sources). -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Arbitrarily0

  I think the claim that my edits exclusively aim to amass negative material on the charismatic renewal is flawed(WP:NPA)

  You have personally thanked me providing the majority of reliable sources used on this page.

  You have personally stated that I add "good points" when correcting you on the removal of all history associated with the shepherding movement.

  You have personally thanked me for correcting other errors you have made, such as claiming the mother of god community was part of sword of the spirit.

  You have sent me thanks for correcting your errors on the wiki you created about ralph martin.

  So I think your argument here does not hold.

  I have a specific knowledge which is relevant to my study - this knowledge belongs in an encyclopaedia. I am by no means obliged to cultivate a different field of study because you do not like the content of reliably sourced information in my current field.

  I would also point out that you not liking something does not make it implicitly negative - right wing conservative christian independent ministries may reflect a morality which many find positive. It is not our place to pass judgement on this morality.

  Please see the above discussion for clear detailing of treadwells roles in sword of the spirit and servants of the word, namely as founder and director of youth outreach youth initiatives, regional director of kairos, and sword of the spirit "mission leader". LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Arbitrarily0

  If I have included any error WRT your case made, I have previously invited you to edit the presentation of cases above, as this occurred during your absence. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  I dont think the wall of shame argument holds here either.

  If an organisation does something notable and reliably reported - that information belongs in wiki.

  If the notable and reliably reported thing the organisation did is bad - the information still belongs in wiki.

  I would suggest that the issue here is not 'opening the door' to a potential wall of shame, but rather 'closing the door' to notable and reliably reported information.

  If the wiki does become a wall of shame - then it should be addressed.

  But censoring information because one editor hypothesises that a wall of shame could exist in the future does not seem sensible. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  I do not think the run-of-the-mill argument holds either.

  Certainly the topic of discussion does not seem to me to be "a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from the rest". LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think what @Arbitrarily0 meant was that Treadwell is a run of the mill member. But as I said above I think the relevance comes from the fact that the leadership was aware of prior accusations. If that were not the case and Treadwell was just a random member I would agree that it wouldn't be relevant. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  ^ This was precisely what I tried to articulate above in my vote and in my phrasing of the RFC question—credit to @Random person no 362478479 for being able to say in two sentences what I struggled to say in a paragraph.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Random person no 362478479 @Jerome Frank Disciple @Arbitrarily0

  I would agree that the relevance of reporting to leadership is the notable thing here. The current text is similar to my previous version prior to removal and looks great to me.

  I am not proposing in-text inclusion of treadwells leadership roles in sword of the spirit. Rather I am simply noting reporting of treadwells leadership roles in sword of the spirit in discussion because other editors asked about it and seemed to find this information relevant to their assessment. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for all your patience as we try to get to the bottom of this. User:Random person no 362478479 says, I think the relevance comes from the fact that the leadership was aware of prior accusations. But the leadership refers to the leadership of the Servants of the Word. To connect this to Sword of the Spirit leadership would be synthesis, or perhaps just false. Can we address my example of dioceses? I just feel what's being proposed here, if applied consistently, is liable to make every federation of small organizations (federations like a diocese) into a wall of shame, and I don't think that's what we want. For instance, I don't think Treadwell's case ought to be mentioned in the The Potter's House (school) where Treadwell abused someone, unless the leadership of the school (analogous to the leadership of the Sword of the Spirit) was somehow implicated. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  Given that three of the eight leaders of SotS are also leaders of SotW I think they cannot be kept apart. I think it boils down to whether this fact falls under WP:OR. I'll have to do some thinking on that question. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Random person no 362478479 @Arbitrarily0

  I think it is sufficient to simply report that the information is relevant to the leadership of the servants of the word.

  I think it is clear that the servants of the word are an executive branch of sword of the spirit - and there are sources that make this implicitly clear (pg3 - under activities "International Executive Council: governing the Sword of the Spirit worldwide)".

  That said - these sources are almost all corroborating primary sources - and are independent of the abuse reporting. So I would not propose going into the level of detail WRT reporting of the abuse case.

  If there was desire to report the fact that the servants of the word leadership was involved in sword of the spirit leadership - then I would agree at least that there is need to report this independently from reporting of the abuse case - as it is an independent fact in itself.

  Otherwise, the servants of the word are already a topic of this wiki, and there appears to be no contest of the relevance of this information to the servants of the word - so I still strongly favour inclusion of this information - without the need to go into a level of detail where concerns about synthesis and original research are relevant. The current draft seems suitable to me - we could even be briefer. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  Well said, User:Random person no 362478479. I agree that the whole thing comes down to a question of WP:OR, or more specifically WP:SYNTH. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Arbitrarily0 @Random person no 362478479

  I would argue that the relevance of the servants of the word to the sword of the spirit has already been established as an independent fact and included in the sword of the spirit wiki thanks to an edit by @Arbitrarily0.

  The relevance of the reporting of the abuse case - which is indisputably linked to servants of the word leadership - is therefore merited.

  Additional information regarding servants of the word leadership is discrete from this - and requires independent consideration. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  After giving it some thought I think that we should restrict things to allegations against the leadership of Servants of the Word. Everything else while reasonable is too iffy in terms of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Therefore I vote for including @Jerome Frank Disciple's draft as is. The two organisations are clearly intertwined enough that it is relevant to the article even if we don't go into their exact relationship in the article. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  I still think this breaches WP:SYNTH. If the leaders of a federated organization, in their capacity as leaders of that organization, are indicted, then this is grounds for inclusion. Otherwise, were going to have major content problems on the articles of all kinds of federated organizations, like dioceses. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think as long as we don't say that the leadership is intertwined, there's no synth issue. Whether that information belongs is, I think, an extremely close call, but I also think it could go in the article even without any leadership connection (after all, my soft include vote wasn't based on that connection). Yes, the leadership connection is a bit OR, but as long as we don't put the conclusion in text ... it's the type of OR that is almost inherent to content-inclusion decisions. (How do Wikipedia editors determine what weight is due or whether a viewpoint is fringe without relying on our own research?) Since they're suggesting my draft text be used (and my draft text doesn't make any mention about intertwined leadership), that's all I understand Random person to be doing.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Arbitrarily0 I don't think your analogy of dioceses does the situation justice. Remember that of the eight leaders of Sword of the Spirit three are also leaders of Servants of the Word. If we apply that ratio to the catholic church we end up with 83 cardinals (out of 222). Imagine what would happen if there was evidence that 83 cardinals knew of allegations of child molestation and let the accused continue working with children.

  The fact that the two organisations are this strongly intertwined is OR and should therefore not be included in the article. But as @Jerome Frank Disciple pointed out I believe that using this information for making the decision to include the allegation against the leadership of Servants of the Word in the article does not go against either the letter or the spirit of Wikipedia rules. And since the draft does not mention the relationship between the leaderships it can be included. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  This previous edit to the page states the link between Servants of the Word and Sword of the Spirit with reference to this paper - though a better description is arguably given in this book.

  The fact that the groups are related is therefore already an independently established fact.

  This article used in the proposed draft does also state "This family is part of another religious group, The Sword of the Spirit, that has strong ties to the celibate brotherhood that Treadwell was in".

  So there is note of the connection in the article itself.

  Discussion around the extent of the relationship between servants of the word and sword of the spirit on the talk page has included some OR - but no editor has actually proposed that this be included in the wiki.

  Rather the proposed draft simply briefly summarises notable reporting regarding the leadership of an organisation who are already a topic of this wiki. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  So what Arbitrarily0 is getting at is WP:SYNTHESIS. That is, you're taking sources that are only about the relationship between an abuse scandal and SoW leadership ... and you're taking other sources about a relationship between SoW and SoS leadership ... and you're saying "so the first sources are also about SoS leadership." You're essentially gluing the sources together and saying "aha! there is a connection!" ... but that is original research (it's synthesis). If we were to directly say that SoS leadership was implicated by the scandal, that would be inappropriate. But as long as we don't say that (and the proposed draft doesn't), I think we're in safe territory.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  In short I would agree.

  Rather I am trying to point out that no editor has actually proposed that we include a description of the relationship between servants of the word and sword of the spirit in the draft - so debate over whether or not this is OR or synthesis seems like a redundant issue.

  Instead the relationship between servants of the word and sword of the spirit is already briefly described with sources and external web links thanks to a previous edit - which is completely independent of the one under discussion currently - so again debate over the relationship between the two groups and whether or not this is OR and synthesis seems like a redundant issue. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Is it true that we're saying that this information should ultimately be included because of the eight leaders of Sword of the Spirit three are also leaders of Servants of the Word? And if so, can we verify that the leaders of the Servants of the Word who were responsible for the negligence (some or all of which, if I'm reading the MPR articles correctly, occurred "at least ten years ago", i.e., at least before 2010) were the same ones who are leading the Sword of the Spirit in 2023? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  My position, and, as I take it (please correct me if I'm wrong!), @LinnCDoyle2's and @Random person no 362478479's position is that the draft text can be included regardless of the direct connection, though I think both LinnCDoyle2 and Random person are saying that the fact that Servants of the Word is a prominent group within Sword of the Spirit (and not, as my initial example posited, equivalent to a random book club started by low-level members) adds to the reasons they think it should be included.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think the decision whether to involve information about or relevant to one organisation in an article about another related organisation depends to a large degree on how close, how intertwined those organisations are. For Sword of the Spirit that affects both the decision whether to include the information about Treadwell who belonged to Servants of the Word and the decision whether to include the information about Cantalamessa who was baptised in People of Hope. I further believe that basing the editorial decision of whether to include information to a certain degree on OR regarding the question of how close organisations are is legitimate. We have information that shows that People of Hope play a major role in Sword of the Spirit, so it is reasonable to include the information on Cantalamessa. Via his relation to People of Hope he is probably the most high profile person with a relationship to Sword of the Spirit. Including him corresponds to including "notable members" in other organisations. At the same time we have information that shows that Servants of the Word play a major role in Sword of the Spirit, so it is reasonable to include the information on Treadwell. A major allegation against Servants of the Word is relevant to Sword of the Spirit. The fact that Servants of the Word play a major role in Sword of the Spirit can be established without information on the connection between the leaderships. Knowing just how intertwined the leaderships are merely dispels any remaining doubts as to how close the organisations are. Even if there was no overlap in the leadership the connection would be very strong. So the information about the overlap in leaderships is merely a simple, direct, and obvious way of illustrating how close the connection is. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Arbitrarily0 @Random person no 362478479 @InvadingInvader @Pincrete

  Discussion does not seem to be progressing.

  No new editors have recently joined the discussion.

  I believe it is time to close this RFC.

  The current standing appears to be:

  @Arbitrarily0 & @Pincrete are OPPOSE for a total of 2.

  @Jerome Frank Disciple @Random person no 362478479 and myself are INCLUDE for a total of 3.

  @InvadingInvader is null, as they do not specify whether or not the conditional attatched to their inclusion recommendation is met (unless they currently wish to address this currently?)

  Can all editors accept the majority vote for inclusion here? LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  Oh I would object to that. RFC's aren't actually resolved according to majority votes. You can post this page at Wikipedia:Closure requests, and a third party will examine it to determine if there was a consensus by weighing the arguments in light of Wikipedia policy.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  I see, I have misunderstood the purpose of this votes section it seems.

  Well it certainly seems unlikely that there will be new discussion, and it certainly seems like there is no chance of achieving a consensus on the proposed draft.

  So I would propose that we follow this closure request process then if all editors agree? LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm in!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  I would also propose that editors leave a closing summary for the benefit of whatever fortunate souls picks up this RFC - the discussion here is quite long. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have created a subsection for closing summaries and added mine. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The link to SoS seems far too tenuous to warrant inclusion of an individual case, regardless of how repugnant that case might be. But IF included, the link between SoW and SoS should be clearer. Pincrete (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Pincrete

  Thanks for the input.

  It is worth noting that servants of the word are already noted with the link to sword of the spirit in previous edits to this wiki by @Arbitrarily0

  Csordas book is also already referenced in this wiki and provides a thorough description of servants of the word with description of the link to sword of the spirit - that of an 'elite' 'religious order' of the sword of the spirit - responsible for 'training' and 'cultivating' sword of the spirit communities (pg 84, 87, 90, 126, 128, 129, 130).

  Also see the ensuing discussion - though this is just discussion - not content proposed for inclusion - it does make the link between the two groups abundantly clear. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Summaries for the discussion closer

User:Random person no 362478479

I think the decision whether to involve information about or relevant to one organisation in an article about another related organisation depends to a large degree on how close, how intertwined those organisations are. We have information that shows that Servants of the Word play a major role in Sword of the Spirit, so it is reasonable to include the information on Treadwell. A major allegation against Servants of the Word, i.e. that they new about allegations of sexual misconduct towards children against Treadwell, but let him continue working with children, is relevant to Sword of the Spirit. Just how closely intertwined the two organisations are can be told by the fact that of the eight leaders of Sword of the Spirit three are also leaders of Servants of the Word. For this reason I believe that the draft text proposed by Jerome Frank Disciple should be included in the article. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

User:LinnCDoyle2

I support the draft text proposed by Jerome Frank Disciple for inclusion in the article.'

The Servants of the Word are already a topic of this wiki, as is referenced description of the relevance of the Servants of the Word to the Sword of the Spirit. Additional background research performed by editors verifies the connection between the two groups. Additionally this source which is used in the proposed draft explicitly notes "strong ties" between the Servants of the Word and Sword of the Spirit.

The proposed draft describes handling of reporting of sexual abuse to Servants of the Word leadership over a decade, which I believe is notable, and of clear relevance to this wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinnCDoyle2 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello!

Maybe I'm missing something, but my understanding is that the closer gives a closing summary explaining his or her decision, not that the users involved make closing arguments. Could be wrong! Either way, I'll add this to WP:Closure requests since everyone seems ready for a close.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

You're right "closing summary" has a specific meaning here. I have renamed the section "Summaries for the discussion closer". -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

In hindsight, particularly given the new section title, I regret having created a subsection called "Hello!". Well, at least the closer will be able to quickly spot that I'm the village idiot here. :) --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Every village needs one. :) -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General notes

Hello! I just wanted to check in on this page with some fresh eyes and give some feedback, in case anyone still, for some reason, cares what I have to say :) I really don't want to introduce errors into this article, and I'm not so arrogant as to think that a close enough reading of Csordas's book will render me competent, so I want to document my rationale for the changes. Namely, relying on the aforementioned book, I'm trying to make the timeline cleaner. We jump all over the place a bit in this article:

• "Csordas" is often invoked, but never introduced. The first reference to him just says "Csordas describes". No first name or anything!
• The training course is first discussed in the 1990s section with this sentence: "Martin argued that the community training course was, though in some respects valuable, 'an ill-advised venture' which was harmful to community members." But how the heck is the reader supposed to know what the training course is? That sentence is meaningless to a reader without background knowledge ... and to get the background knowledge necessary to understand it ... the reader will have to keep reading and reading ... until the "Teachings" section under "Description."
• As it stands, the article relies too much on quotations when we could paraphrase. I'm not tackling that in these edits, but something to note for the future.

I'm editing the article to add some clarity, and I'm relying on the Csordas timeline, which I'll restate below:

1960s(ish)	Word of God founded by Steven Clark and Ralph Martin.
1972	Servants of the Word, a celebrate brotherhood within Word of God, created; Clark is the leader.
1980–81	Word of God leaders start a training course headed by Clark; the training course is noted for the rigid background principles that informed it—an understanding of faith that placed high demands on adherents. Many members are ostracized/condemned. There's considerable uproar that will reverberate for the next decade.
1981ish	A thing called Association of Communities splits—some communities join Word of God, which calls the collection of communities (including itself) the Federation of Communities
1982	Federation of Communities, under the leadership of Word of God, changes its name to Sword of the Spirit
1991	A schism(ish). The Word of God leadership (i.e. Martin) effectively renounces the rigid vision that guided the training course. Clark, on the other hand, thinks the principles are sound and should be continued, even if he admits the training course was awkwardly implemented. Several communities, including the Word of God, seeking more autonomy, decide, by vote, to become "allies" of the Sword of the Spirit. (The "allied" designation is meant to indicate that the communities are still part of the federation but that the federation leadership will have less control.) Servants of the Word—the celibate brotherhood led by Clark—claims that it is an autonomous organization and therefore not bound by the Word of God vote; it chooses to remain firmly within Sword of the Spirit.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi JFD

Thanks a lot for getting involved in this article - it certainly is useful :)

• An introduction for Csordas seems useful. I would keep it short and sweet - i.e. "Thomas Csordas, a professor of Anthropology who provides study of the Charismatic Renewal".
• Moving the introduction of the training course to history seems like a prudent move to me - it would make the article more understandable.
• I would agree that there are too many pull quotes in the article. That said - there is a lot of pushback on pretty much every edit recently - so it is perhaps useful to keep everything as true to the source as possible until that simmers down again.
• WRT to timeline what you have is a good start. I do intend to get round to a bit more detailed timeline with more references here - there is a lot to add WRT the involvement of People of Praise Derek Prince and the Shepherding Movement as well as some peripheral involvement of John Wimber of the Vineyard Church and groups like the Promise Keepers. Unfortunately I have less time to edit currently, so this will need to happen as and when I have the time.
• One thing I would appraise you off - Csordas recount of the 'Schism' does not seem to be entirely accurate. Rather than an internal disagreement between Clark and Martin over the training course (though this was a result, but not the cause) the split was largely due to several bishops and archbishops ordering parishes to disaffiliate with the Sword of the Spirit. This is mentioned in some of the news sources, and a little bit of OR confirms that this is indeed corroborated. I would still go ahead and make your edits - I just would not frame the root cause of the split as an internal dispute - as this certainly seems not to be the case.

As I say - when I have the time I adding a robust history here is on my "to do list" - so I will come in and tidy up anything after the fact if that is good for you?

LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the thanks, though of course it's not necessary :) And I think reader understanding is key—for me, the problem wasn't so much that the training course was absent from a particular section as the fact that it was mentioned offhand in a section (without any explanation of what it meant).

I thought I saw Csordas say the schism also owed to that—or at least that he documented the bishops / archbishops dissatisfaction? But of course he does suggest the internal split caused it. Given that we rely on Csordas for a quite a bit, we should include his analysis but also include the others—we should reflect the reliable sources, even if there's disagreement, and our opinion of which source is correct doesn't count for much. It could be that both are right—that the Word of God adopted allied status in 1991, and then, as communities with Sword of the Spirit were censored, more communities joined Word of God (or disaffiliated altogether). Looking forward to your edits—always happy for more details! --Jerome Frank Disciple 13:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you to both Jerome Frank Disciple and LinnCDoyle2 for a fruitful and civil collaboration thus far. Hopefully we can involve more editors other than you, Jerome Frank Disciple, but thank you very much for your attention to this topic. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I hope so too! I think the changes I made above were really necessary for article readability, I've made a few more edits in that vein today, but I do think the editors who are most interested and familiar with this subject—that is, you and LinnCDoyle2 (and maybe also Random person?)—should guide the expansion of the article—just bear in mind that Wikipedia is generally written for nonexperts (like myself!).--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple: Can you comment on this? It is another case where the pre-foundation/post-foundation distinction comes into view. That said, like any conservative Christian organization, Sword of the Spirit presumably embraces complementarianism. Pinging User:LinnCDoyle2 as well. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

presumably does not make a good case. This seems like your original conclusion, and as previously noted is not stated in the referenced text.

Please review pg 89 - 130

There is extensive discussion of male headship.

It is discussed with clear relevance to Sword of the Spirit in addition to discussion of pre-formation history.

This is corroborated by other secondary sources used throughout this article. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I can't review 40 pages right now, but I think it's safe to say that nothing that is in the pre-foundation section should be included unless it's explicitly mentioned as being part of the org post-foundation. We can't just assume an idea continued.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

User:LinnCDoyle2, can you provide a page number for where gender complementarianism appears post-foundation? That's all we would need. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

From Csordas:

Pg 89, during discussion of tensions in Sword of the Spirit throughout the 80s.

"The intensity of behavioral restrictions created family tensions, particularly in two respects. First was the increasingly specific prescription of male headship and gender discipline."

Pg 113

"Stated in more theoretical language, the Sword of the Spirit's claim to leadership among Charismatics had been predicated on an implicit structural opposition between dominant male and submissive female"

Pg 118, when discussing the training course of the Sword of the Spirit in the 80s

"a gender ideology that explicitly subordinated women to men"

See for example of corroborating secondary source:

"Women are kept in a subservient role"

There is of course much much more throughout literature, however this seems sufficient to make it clear that this is an accurate description of gender roles in Sword of the Spirit.

If there is any dispute over interpretation an alternative quote can be pulled from Csordas research output:

"those in the Sword of the Spirit were taught that a motto for women should be “make a space” and a motto for men should be “seize the territory”. These mottoes are intended to prescribe distinct gender roles for women and men."

Do not use Complementarianism.

Complementarianism defines a difference in treatment between genders.

It does not, however, define a subservient role of one gender to another implicitly. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Re: Complementarianism ... obviously wikipedia isn't its own source, but the article you linked says, "Complementarians assign primary headship roles to men and support roles to women based on their interpretation of certain biblical passages." Isn't primary/support equivalent to "leader/subservient"? Regardless, I would say that we should use a term like complementarianism unless we have a source.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The term is not used in the Csordas text at all.

The term did not even exist until 1988, so seems unlikely to be what Clark and Martin were teaching in 1982.

Maybe read more into the wiki article on Complementarianism.

There are interpretations that do not follow the traditional Abrahamic gender hierarchy of male over female - for example see the section on "Complementarian movements within feminism" - which specifically state a non-hierarchical interpretation. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

In any case, claiming the Csordas text does not discuss gender roles in Sword of the Spirit is erroneous, and blanking related text seems unconstructive. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

It's fine that we use the word "complementarianism" even though Csordas does not, as long as that's the most precise way to label what he's describing. I've linked it to Christian views on marriage#Complementarian view, which is unambiguous. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Arbitrarily0

That link relates to marriage.

The Csordas text does not.

It is clear multiple editors do not think "complementarianism" is suitable here.

Csordas does not mention complementatianism.

It is not suitable for us to assume an additional set of beliefs of the Sword of the Spirit, simply because they practice gender hierarchy in some form.

Please discuss here prior to further editing. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple: can you arbitrate on this? Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I would lean towards not including a term of art (which I think complementatianism is?) without some source also using that term—doesn't have to be Csordas, of course, could be anyone.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Unusual Editing

@Arbitrarily0: @Jerome Frank Disciple: @Random person no 362478479:

There is some extremely unusual editing surrounding mention of Saint Paul's Outreach.

I am currently looking at a snapshot of this page.

This snapshot contains the text "We are linked with three significant organisations worldwide: Sword of the Spirit (SOS), University Christian Outreach (UCO), St. Paul’s Outreach (SPO)"

This snapshot was accurate when I viewed the page a day previous.

However it seems that in the hours prior to this edit by @Arbitrarily0: the page in question was modified and the prior quoted text removed.

I am unsure of how to manage this. Advice would be greatly appreciated.

I will add this source, which contains the same information for now.

LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

LinnCDoyle2, I think your solution is fine. What's ultimately needed here is secondary sources for the "outreach" section, because the primary sources can be modified. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

At any rate, I don't think we should include any items in the external links section for (1) independent communities, and (2) pages that have their own articles (e.g., Word of God (community), Saint Paul's Outreach. Otherwise it will be very unwieldy. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Outreach

@Jerome Frank Disciple: Can you give some input on what, if anything, should be done to the "Outreach" section? It's just based heavily on primary sources. Should we keep it as is? Compress it? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi! So, the first thing I'd personally do is look for reliable sources that discuss any of those programs. (I might be able to help out a little later today! Schedule is uncertain.) If non can be found ... yeah it should probably be compressed.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Religious practices

@Jerome Frank Disciple: Are you up for offering another third opinion? It seems like User:LinnCDoyle2 both respect your opinion, and at this point you know quite a bit about this subject. We have disputed over this edit. I think that the Charismatic Renewal should be mentioned here, as it was previously, because these practices are all typical of the Charismatic Renewal (the entire Charismatic Renewal is presumably disdained for these practices, not just this organization). Secondly, I think the reference to exorcism should be removed, because the linked source (p. 123) states that exorcism (in the usual, ritual sense) is not intended: “Exorcism” is simply a traditional word for either casting out evil spirits or telling evil spirits to leave a person or a place free. In explaining the prayer of exorcism we should say that we are simply going to pray the same kind of prayer that is part of every Catholic celebration of the sacrament of baptism. My argument is that by including "exorcism" in its technical, theological sense we mislead the reader. Finally, "demonology" is not mentioned in the sources. LinnCDoyle2, feel free to respond if I'm missing something. Thank you for your input, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Not ready to give an opinion yet, but just for my sake, I'm going to tq2 both of these variations, because it seems to me like the difference here is subtle.

Religious practice within the Sword of the Spirit and other covenant communities within the Charismatic Christianity movement include a range of practices from Pentacostalism. These practices have historically included Exorcism and Demonology, Speaking in tongues, Spiritual gifts (or 'charisms'), Faith Healing and Prophecy.

or

Religious practice within the Sword of the Spirit include a range of practices from Pentacostalism. These practices have historically included Exorcism and Demonology, as well as practices seen elsewhere in Charismatic Christianity, such as Speaking in tongues, Spiritual gifts (or 'charisms'), Faith Healing and Prophecy.

(Completely unrelated ... should those wikilinks really all be capitalized?)

Unfortunately, I ... don't actually understand the "ritual" vs. "technical" distinction you're referencing.

I'm also a bit confused by the claim that exorcism isn't common through Charismatic Christianity ... I found a few sources that said otherwise?

• Here's a book chapter by Michael J. McClymond :Charismatic gifts – e.g., tongue-speaking, healing, prophecy, and the casting out of demons (exorcism, deliverance) – were commonly reported phenomena in the Christian communities of the New Testament era and well into the second and third centuries CE. These phenomena are today generally associated with Pentecostal-Charismatic Christianity and yet they have had a more continuous presence and role in church history than commonly recognized.
• And here's an interview with R. Andrew Chestnut, the Walter Sullivan Chair in Catholic Studies and a professor of religious studies at VCU, which notes that Chestnut had opined that "charismatic Christianity has been behind a revival of exorcisms among Protestants".

@Random person no 362478479: If you have any background understanding on this subject, you are infinitely more qualified than me to help resolve (what seems to be?) a minor dispute here.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks User:Jerome Frank Disciple. Sorry for making an unclear distinction. By "ritual" exorcisms I mean what are called "major exorcisms", usually dealing with someone who is thought to be possessed. "Minor exorcisms" (what I called exorcisms in the "technical" sense) are a part of the Christian rite of baptism, which are the kind intended by the source in question. Both forms are endemic to Catholic Christianity, but the major exorcisms are only done by priests. Since this organization is predominately Catholic, presumably that's why the (primary) source wants to make clear that only minor exorcisms (the kind found universally within Christianity) are to be practiced. That's why I think it's best to remove the exorcism part altogether. So here's what I would propose:

As a charismatic Christian organization, the Sword of the Spirit practices the charismatic gifts, such as prophecy, speaking in tongues, and healing.

And I would propose not putting this in its own subsection, but in the lede of the description section. On the other hand, since this passage does not say anything which distinguishes Sword of the Spirit from other charismatic Christian groups (neither my version nor the others), I'm also okay with removing it entirely. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for my radio silence. I've been taking a mental health break from wikipedia for a couple of weeks.

As far as I understand, charismatic groups perform exorcisms in the weak deliverance sense. If we include information about this we should make it clear that they are not performing the kind of full blown ritualized exorcism that the catholic church uses. Most people will understand the word "Exorcism" in the latter sense (or more likely they will picture scenes from The Exorcist or another horror movie).

Whether or not we should include the information at all depends on how common and how important it is within Sword of the Spirit. In particular we should not rely on information about charismatic groups in general, but only on specific information about the practices of SotS. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

From Cultic Studies Journal, 1994, Volume 11, Number 1, pages 77-87

"In reading the testimonies and accounts of cults, covenant communities, and shepherding/discipleship groups from the Moonies to the Branch Davidians to the Sword of the Spirit, we discover a strong and consistent emphasis on evil spirits. It is an emphasis that differs significantly from that in traditional Christianity, and it becomes an important tool for control of the lives of the members of these groups. In what follows, we will outline the "demonology" typically used by the covenant communities."

It seems the primary source (the Life in the Spirit book published by Sword of the Spirit) and the secondary source (the journal article) agree that demonology and exorcism is practiced within Sword of the Spirit.

The primary source does imply prayer of deliverance.

However secondary sources like this one report individuals who through OR we are aware are SoS members and leaders, performing "the exorcist" type rituals.

Exorcism and Demonology are not absolutely typical of Charismatic Christianity - for example divisions of Wimber's vineyard church have been cut off for this sort of practice in the past.

In either case I think the current text is absolutely fine.

There is no reason to hide information on demonology and exorcism here. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Ralph Martin seems to be big on demons to too:

https://www.renewalministries.net/files/freeliterature/novaetvetera11_1martin_(2).pdf

https://vdocuments.mx/the-authority-of-the-good-shepherd-overcoming-evil.html

I'm still on the fence on the question of "exorcist style" rituals. In the case reported in that secondary source it isn't clear whether the affiliation with SotS was a factor. On the other hand the current text is not explicit on the question of what kind of exorcism is performed in SotS. I just wish they had google friendlier names. Whether it's "Ralph Martin", "Steve Clark", or "Sword of the Spirit", in each case most of the search results have nothing to do with what we're looking for. Finding good sources is a real challenge here. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)