Talk:Newfrontiers

Christianity: Charismatic Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.

Everything Conference was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 24 May 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Newfrontiers. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Untitled

Can anyone verify if any church uses dance/drum 'n' bass music as part of worship? Maybe it should be specified, since this is not the norm.

A glance at http://www.cck.org.uk/Group/Group.aspx?id=33470 shows pictures of Phatfish, composed of some musicians from the NFI Church of Christ the King (CCK) in Brighton. The pictures include Nathan Fellingham playing drums and Luke Fellingham playing bass guitar. Phatfish frequently lead worship at CCK and other NFI events. Evaluist 17:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fundamental difference between 'drum n' bass' as a musical genre vs. simply having drums and a bass player in a band. The above CCK reference does not establish the use of drum ' bass (----)

No church in Newfrontiers that I know of uses dance/drum and bass during worship. The Newfrontiers church in Accra, Ghana has a very overpowering drum section but I don't think this is what you were referring to.

It all depends on whats best for worshipping, does it mean we're thinking about the music or about the reason why we're worshipping! If the music helps, then why not use it! That's why Newfrontiers is mint ;)

Is the long list of churches really necessary for us to understand the nature of this community, or is it just self-promotion? In that case it violates NPOV Hyper3 (talk 13:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are going to need some help here, or this will turn difficult. The long list of churches is not the point of wikipedia! This information can be found on the Newfrontiers website. Play fair! Hyper3 (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charismatic and Pentecostal Christianity

The claim was made that Newfrontiers is not a Pentecostal denomination.

In what way can Newfrontiers or any denomination be "Charismatic" but not Pentecostal?--Carlaude ^(talk) 03:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Charismatic" refers to a particular set of beliefs surrounding the use of spiritual gifts; "Pentecostal" refers to a set of denominations that arose out of the 1906 Azusa Street Revival. Pentecostals are mainly situated historically, whilst charismatics are mainly situated theologically. There are charismatic Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists etc who would all say they believe in spiritual gifts but are not Pentecostals. Newfrontiers is part of a group of churches influenced by the charismatic movement in the UK who deliberately distanced themselves from Pentecostalism, for cultural and theological reasons. The foremost theological reason being the tendency of Pentecostals to insist that speaking in tongues is necessary for both baptism in the Spirit and conversion. An excerpt from Arthur Wallis' biography (the senior leader in the British New Church Movement):"The general emphasis among pentecostal believers was ‘unless you’ve spoken in tongues, you’ve not been baptised in the Spirit’. Arthur felt that this dogmatic stance should be strongly resisted. […] His own experience only served to reinforce this fact, and he would always encourage people to ‘earnestly desire spiritual gifts’ but not to get too preoccupied with the gift of tongues." Jonathan Wallis Arthur Wallis: Radical Christian (East Sussex: Kingsway, 1991) 145. The simplest way of putting it is that all Pentecostals are (or should be) charismatic, but not all charismatics are Pentecostal! Read charismatic movement which refers to the common error of mixing the two. Happy to help with further questions! Hyper3 (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you are using the terms as they are normally meant-- but if you beleave this is all correct-- you should try to relect it in the article on the Charismatic movement.--Carlaude ^(talk) 08:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think wikipedia relies on people using terms accurately, not colloquially. The article on the Charismatic movement is clear that the two movements are related though they are different. As a member of a similar movement not unlike Newfrontiers, it is my experience that if someone asks if we are Pentecostal, we would deny it but admit some similarities. The same would be true of the Vineyard movement in the US; as you can read here, for some it is important to see themselves rooted in "traditional Evangelicalism, as opposed to historic Pentecostalism." What do you think might need changing in the Charismatic movement article to make it clearer? Hyper3 (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on further inspection I did find that the Pentecostal section of charismatic movement needed a rewrite: now it needs footnotes... Hyper3 (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hyper3 is correct in his description of terms 'charismatic' and 'pentecostal'. These are the usual use of these terms. Doubt I could have put it better myself. Good job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.124.253 (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link Farm

The buildings section is a "link farm" mainly used for advertising. I think a few sentences of summary would do, removing all the links. Anyone else agree? Hyper3 (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done it. Hyper3 (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An advert or an article

Which is this? APW (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably somewhat too self-promotional. The current '{{rewrite}}' at the head of the article at least provides a suggestion to the reader to be on their guard. Should this be replaced by '{{advert}}'? Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

Criticism sections are not encouraged in wikipedia policy - could these thoughts be integrated? Hyper3 (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism section states "A recent illustration of this was when semi-official Newfrontiers' blogger Adrian Warnock[8] closed the blog to comments following debate challenging Newfrontiers' complementarian position."

However http://adrianwarnock.com/about/ states: "Opinions expressed in this blog are Adrian Warnock’s alone, and do not represent the views of his church, employer or anyone else for that matter!". In any case, there is a citation required for the statement "closed the blog to comments following debate challenging Newfrontiers' complementarian position" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oimon (talk • contribs) 11:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem in that on the one had this article is described as potentally being too self-promotional but on the other hand Wikipedia's policy discourages criticism sections TUCTUC1 (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organisational exclusivity

The section discussed in "criticism" above is now in "organisational exclusivity". The Adrian Warnock comments have been removed by an anonymous user who writes "as stated in the forum for the page, Adrian Warnock's blog stated that his views were his own, also many forums and blogs close heated threads." While this is true on the face of it, people close to the organisation will recognise that Warnock's access and content reflect the party line. Many organisations use a blog in such a semi-official capacity. When the blog was closed as recorded above, the debate simply moved to a non-Newfrontiers site, with all the same players. This says something about room for discussion within the organisation itself, as does the fact that the edit was anonymous EutychusFr (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting section blanking of content unfavourable to Newfrontiers

I have reverted some edits which anonymously deleted entire sections offering substantiated criticisms of the movement and invited the contributor to discuss their actions. As in my comment on Sept 7, I think this rather proves that this content is justified in being there... EutychusFr (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually these were removed as web forums are not considered to be a reliable source, and do "not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

213.104.249.142 (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited again following Yworo's edits. I find these carry a lot more weight because, unlike the previous commenter, Yworo logged in to perform them.

The article as a whole is flagged as requiring a major rewrite. I'm not in a position to do that, but my edits on this page have been an attempt to render the article more objective and make it read less like an advertisement. Blogs and web forums may be deemed not to be reliable sources in and of themselves, but at the very least I believe it is important to inform readers of the existence of discussions calling into question Newfrontiers practices - discussions with participants on both sides of the debate. I'll be in touch with Yworo on their talk page, too EutychusFr (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Criticism section

The heading "Tendency towards organisational exclusivity" needs to go as blatant editorialising. The sentence John Buckeridge, senior editor of Christianity magazine, interviewed Terry Virgo for its July 2009 issue and was surprised at Virgo's request for "extensive changes and edits" to the interview prior to publication also needs to go as being contrary to WP:BLP - there is an implied, veiled criticism that is totally inappropriate. St Anselm (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The study quoted lists several strengths of newfrontiers elders, three of which I have quoted. The study was not critical in its tone although identified weaknesses so basing a criticism section on it seems pretty weak. At no point does the article refer to "allegations of spiritual abuse" so my final question would be why does that headline remain? (ThrobsBlackHat (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The criticism section should be integrated into the text according to WP:NOCRIT and the section headline "criticism" therefore removed. Hyper3 (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Newfrontiers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"New community church" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect New community church. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 2#New community church until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Everything Conference" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Everything Conference. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 2#Everything Conference until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]