Talk:Sword of the Spirit/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

2023 overhaul

I have finally gotten around to a complete overhaul of this page, in order to fix the neutrality issues. Here is an explanation of some of the bigger changes:

• Lede: I have removed the reference to "sheperding"—I cannot confirm the relationship between SOS and the shepherding movement in the cited material; seems to be speculation
• History: I have greatly expanded this section, incorporating some of the neutral content from the section on "Notable member communities"
• Notable member communities: I have removed this section, either by transferring the material into the history section, or (in the cases of People of Praise and Servants of Christ the King) by deleting it. There is just too much information here. An article on a religious order should not go into the details of all the provinces/households. The section on "In Popular Culture" seemed totally out of place, as well as speculative.
  • Servants of the Word: I have added this community to the history section. I have left out the allegations of child abuse, for the following reasons: (1) the accused individual is not notable; (2) articles on religious orders (e.g., the Dominicans) do not include such accusations/convictions, unless the abuse was committed by a notable member, or in reference to a widespread issue across the organization.
• Youth outreach: I have removed this section, for lack of good sources; but if there are better sources, it should be included under the "mission" subsection I added near the bottom
• Description
  • Religious practices: I removed this section; all this information belongs at Charismatic Christianity
  • Finances: I removed this short section; I cannot find the stated claim in the cited book
  • Gender roles: I simplified this section, and moved it under the subsection on doctrine; the line about “seize the territory” was stripped from its original context
  • Islam, feminism, homosexuality and communism: removed as off-topic; this is much too detailed for a general description, not to mention a commonplace element of conservative Christian groups
• Reception: I transferred this source to the history, which includes criticism in the 1990s subsection. I removed the line citing NYTimes; this is an article about the People of Praise, and moreover, does not seem to contain the information claimed in the article.
• Academic study: this section is also off-topic, although I have made use of this source elsewhere. But this source, which deals with shepherding groups in general, is off-topic.
• Notable members: updated and cited, including only members with a Wikipedia article

Thanks to Linn C Doyle for the variety of sources you discovered here; I have retained almost all of them. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Arbitrarily0

I have reverted this overhaul for now.

I appreciate the effort, but I believe you are wrong about some of these edits.

Perhaps addressing edits by part rather than bulky edits will be better for working through these items.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Firstly I would like to address the removal of reference to the Shepherding movement.

Here the reference to Csordas has the wrong page.

I have the book here.

In the book we can see evidence of the roots of sword of the spirit in the shepherding movement.

See Ch3 'A communitarian ideal'.

See pg 83

The text reads:

"The "personal head" is similar to a spiritual adviser, except that he is not necessarily ordained and that " full headship" ( required of those publicly committed to the community covenant) entails obedience to the head in matters related to morality, spirituality, and community order."

A footnote to [3] is given here.

[3] reads:

"3. The form of covenant community headship apparently is an adaptation of the "shepherding" relationship practiced earlier in Derek Prince and Robert Mumford's neo-Pentecostal Christian Growth Ministries, now defunct."

Also on pg80-81:

"A dimension was added to the group's ritual life with the visit of Don Basham and Derek Prince , leaders of the nondenominational neo-Pentecostal Christian Growth Ministries of Fort Lauderdale. They instructed the community on the disruptive effects of evil spirits on interpersonal relationships and on "God's work" and taught the practice of deliverance from evil spirits. During a prayer session that became known as Deliverance Monday the two preachers cast out demons, which exited their hosts in a paroxysm of screaming, crying, and coughing. The reported effect for those who were not frightened away was freedom from "relationship problems" and a "bottled up" feeling, in a situation in which the intensity of interpersonal relationships was already having a transformative effect on participants' mode of dealing with the world and each other. Other early covenant communities were also discovering deliverance at this time, and it frequently became a required experience for people entering community life."

For reference Christian Growth Ministries, Derek Prince etc are founders of the Shepherding Movement.

To provide additional information and context, it is a known fact that the sword of the spirit founders steve clark and ralph martin previously served under Derek Prince and the "fort lauderdale five" of the shepherding movement (on a council known as the 'ecumenical council'. This work involved managing covenant communities, prior to the founding of sword of the spirit.

This information is corroborated in the referenced text by Sara Diamond (though I would have to double check the exact text here and dont currently have a copy of this book).

'The Shepherding Movement' by David Moore who is an associate professor in the field. Also corroborates this information - providing some of the more extensive discussion of clark and martins relationship with and influence by the shepherding movement.

So I believe your claim that the link between sword of the spirit and the shepherding movement cannot be found in referenced literature is an error, as is the stripping of these information and reference from this article.

I will return to similarly address some other edits as and when I have the time. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Relating to membership value:

The 10,000 value is from peer-reviewed journal paper.

The 14,000 value is self-reported by the organisation.

Previous RFC on the issue has recommended that the journal paper value be used.

I see no good reason to remove the reference, replace a journal paper source with a weak source, or change the value of membership here. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Arbitrarily0

Regarding the additional text to the introduction section:

"Along with the People of Praise, the Sword of the Spirit is one of the two major associations of charismatic communities that came out of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal."

Firstly, the people of praise and sword of the spirit are not "the major associations of charismatic communities that came out of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal".

Rather they are two of many, which are listed in https://doi.org/10.1163/157007494X00210

I would recommend that this DOI is used rather than the research output of billy kangas.

I would recommend the introduction statement be revised to note that sword of the spirit is "one of many" rather than "one of the two major".

The suggested text for introducing sword of the spirit is taken from https://doi.org/10.1163/157007494X00210

"In 1975, "an association of communities" was formed by Word of God and People of Praise communities." This association ended after six years, since the emphases and visions of the founding communities were too disparate. Word of God then formed a new network, the Sword of the Spirit, to embody its ecumenical and prophetic convictions. Sword of the Spirit was established as one international community with member communities becoming branches of Sword of the Spirit." LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Arbitrarily0

From Sara Diamond's book "Spiritual Warfare" relating to the shepherding movement.

Pg155 "the Catholic "shepherding" organisation the Sword of the Spirit"

Pg 122 "However, at about the same time that the Fort Lauderdale Five wing of the shepherding movement was warding off criticism from Pat Robertson and others, the five preachers were engaged in a series of secret meetings with their counterparts in the Catholic shepherding movement. Beginning at least as early as 1974, Bob Mumford, Charles Simpson, Derek Prince, Don Basham and Ern Baxter had entered into a "covenant relationship" with Ralph Martin and Steve Clark...Their alliance was called "The Council" and its purpose was to strengthen the shepherding system across denominational lines."

This supports the summary that the Sword of the Spirit has roots in the Shepherding movement. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Arbitrarily0

From Sara Diamond's book "Spiritual Warfare".

You have referenced this Pg 126 for:

"Cardinal Leo Joseph Suenens was a supporter of Clark, Martin, and other early leaders of the Catholic charismatic renewal."

The text from this section reads:

" In 1976, Catholic charismatic theologian Josephine Massyngberde Ford, published a scathing analysis of the emerging pattern of abuse within the hierarchical CCR communities. She cited incidents of male leaders oppression of women and arbitrary punishment (including food deprivation) of "disobedient" members. A 1980 investigative report of the People of Praise community documented the joining of a San Franxisco charismatic commune with the South Bend community headed by Kevin Ranaghan in which 75 people were ordered to move. The authoritarianism of the covenant communities could have become a heated source of controversy within the larger Catholic charismatic renewal, but there has been little public criticism of the CCR community leaders. Steve Clark, Ralph Martin and Kevin Ranaghan have enjoyed support from the Vatican, especially from Belgian Cardinal Leon Joseph Suenens, who was one of the main proponents of structural reforms within the Catholic church during the Vatican II meetings. Orthodox Catholics concerned about abuses of authority by Catholic charismatic shepherds have been unsuccessful in their attempts to enlist the mediation of the Catholic hierarchy.

Unchallenged, the Sword of the Spirit communities have become increasingly militant, though still highly secretive. In the mid-1980s, Stephen Clark dictated a high level "training course" intended to be gradually revealed to members deemed sufficiently committed to the cause. Clark's written notes provide an alarming indication of the movements future direction. In a section on "Fighting the Enemies of Christ," Clark wrote: "The Lord wants us to take direct steps to protect Christians and to take steps to counter the enemy. This does not have to be open warfare, but can be covert. If we become openly aggressive (like Mor. Majority) then we would com under direct attack of the media and other major anti-Christian groups". The training course includes instructions for members to maintain strict confidentiality in all dealings; within the ranks, initiates operated on a "need to know" basis. A "Statement of Commitment" reads as follows: We are ready for every sacrifice, even death for our brothers and sisters. We are ready to serve until the Lord indicates that the war has been won. We will be loyal to our commanders. We will keep our plans and movements hidden from the enemy and his agents."

I would recommend that this section must be reflected more accurately and in full, rather than simply stating the support of Suenens for sword of the spirit. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Arbitrarily0

Regarding edit to the history section:

https://doi.org/10.1080/0458063X.2022.2085969 presents a somewhat incomplete picture.

Rather in 1975 an association of covenant communities was formed by Martin and Clark and between the Word of God communities and People of Praise communities (https://doi.org/10.1163/157007494X00210).

At this time Martin and Clark were notably working with and receiving guidance from Prince, Shepherding movement etc. (moore, diamond, csordas).

In 1981, due to disagreement, the association of communities split. (https://doi.org/10.1163/157007494X00210)

The communities remaining under the leadership of Martin and Clark became the sword of the spirit. The other group was the People of Praise.

This seems worth noting due to the relevance of topics of note (ie with their own wiki) such as shepherding movement, prince, people of praise. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi LinnCDoyle2. I think it is plain enough that the edits I made were a significant improvement, so I have restored them. Please discuss before further reversions. Thank you, however, for the potential corrections you have pointed out. In particular, I didn't notice the RfC, above. Self-reverted! Thanks for drawing my attention to the sources about the shepherding movement. I'm worried about orginal research here, so I think we should discuss. You cite one author who says "the Catholic "shepherding" organisation the Sword of the Spirit" -- this seems inconclusive, since "sheperding" is in scare quotes (and since Sword of the Spirit is not a Catholic organization); is there more to this quotation? Csordas, who seems to be a careful scholar here, says, as you say, "The form of covenant community headship apparently is an adaptation of the "shepherding" relationship" -- again we have scare quotes, on top of "apparently". Is there anything clearer here? At this point, I think the best we can say is, "The Sword of the Spirit's approach to pastoral ministry may have been inspired by the shepherding movement", although this is perhaps more relevant to Word of God (community). As far as the history section: There should certainly be mention made here about the Word of God, but the Sword of the Spirit was founded in 1982; a more detailed treatment of the Word of God community belongs in the Word of God article. As far as sources: Kangas seems no less reliable than Rush. I think we should include claims of both of them. Kangas is helpful because he does not seem to be critical of the organization, as many authors are. I know I'm probably not satisfying all of your concerns above, but perhaps we can take them one by one. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Arbitrarily0

Your previous edit has introduced factual errors and inaccuracies to source material.

(For example mother of god community is not part of sword of the spirit)

For this reason I have reverted.

I also believe some removed material should be retained.

I will address these errors as and when I have the time.

I would agree that your edit aims to improve the article.

I think perhaps we should remake your edits by part so as not to reintroduce error.

WRT to the shepherding movement:

Sara Diamond states that ~1974 clark and martin worked with Prince etc and shepherding founders.

Moore corroborates this (I still need to check this book for pages and quotes, I think pg 126 perhaps if my memory serves).

Csordas does state "apparently" when noting that sword of the spirit headship follows teachings of Prince etc, but also specifically states as a definite that prince etc provided teachings to sword of spirit communities on interpersonal relationships and "gods work".

From this I believe that we can state with confidence:

- At the time of the formation of the association of covenant communities in 1975 clark and martin were working with prince, shepherding movement etc, and were receiving teaching from prince, shepherding movement etc.

This seems worth noting as shepherding movement, derek prince etc have their own wikis.

I believe this goes in the history section, as it is relevant to the founding of the initial association of covenant communities, part of which would later become sword of the spirit.

I do not understand what a 'scare quote' is?

WRT to Kangas.

You use this source as a date of founding for sword of the spirit.

I believe the previous history noted by theopane should also be included in order to be more complete (particularly as this explains the relevance of another notable group with its own wiki, the people of praise).

I do not understand why this information was removed from this article in your edit?

I do not understand what you believe constitutes original research here?

Specifically which statement do you believe is inferred rather than stated in sources? LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Arbitrarily0

I would not agree that these information is only relevant to the word of god.

Rather it is relevant to sword of the spirit.

An association of covenant communities managed by clark and martin.

In 1975 this was founded.

In 1981 this association split.

One half became people of praise.

One half became sword of the spirit.

In 1991 many communities left including word of god (and martin).

The remaining communities remained as the sword of the spirit following clark.

The information relates to the association of covenant communities.

Sword of the spirit is the remaining element which follows clark from this association.

So this information is relevant to sword of the spirit. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you make some good points here, which we should incorporate into the article, but you keep reverting back to a version of the article that has major neutrality issues. In order to avoid an edit war, I'm going to ask for a third opinion. The question for the third opinion: which version of the article should we set as the baseline: version A or version B? Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Arbitrarily0

To be clear I agree that we should include your edits in this article.

In your edit you have made a single bulk edit.

This edit has introduced new errors.

I think we should discuss here to include your edit by part without these introduced error.

This is easier to do if we make your edits by small parts than I try and unpick errors from your bulk edit.

Would you agree?

Would you be willing to accommodate this? LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Arbitrarily0

Regarding history https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004461680_009 is also relevant.

It presents some clark and martin history prior to 1975 and involving true house also. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

This looks like another good find, LinnCDoyle2. But I think we should incorporate it into Version B, not Version A. I just think it's pretty clear that Version A is far more neutral, and not nearly as erroneous as you are claiming. That's why we need a third opinion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Arbitrarily0

There are error in your edit.

I have just provided correction for two so far, which you seemed to find agreeable.

There are more.

This is easier for me working forward from old to new version, than backword from new to old-and-new-merged. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3O Response: Honestly, I don't love either version. A does have its share of problems, especially a huge amount of excessive detail, but B includes far too much pull quoting from the organization. The article should primarily describe what independent sources say about it, not what it says about itself. Similarly, I almost never like to see "Mission" style stuff included in an article, as that's almost always puff/promotion, so that really shouldn't be there either. That said, I think if those are resolved, B provides at least a better starting point, without some of the excessive detail of the organization's chapters and the like that A has. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Seraphimblade. I agree with your assessment. I have restored "version B" but removed lots of quotes from the organization. LinnCDoyle2, I have also removed the references to Mother of God (instead using Servants of Christ the King as an example) -- thank you for pointing out this error. Let's please proceed with further issues one at a time. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

---

@Arbitrarily0

There are more errors here.

I will get round to doing this as and when I have the time. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

LinnCDoyle2, I agree with some of your recent edits, but have reverted two. First, I have reverted your inclusion of this information. This is an example of the "excessive detail" that Seraphimblade (talk · contribs) is talking about. Moreover, the source simply claims that the author of the Handmaid’s Tale possessed a newspaper clipping about the People of Hope (and other organizations), with no clarity on to the extent of which this served as "background material." If you want to synthesize a theory about the relationship between the Handmaid’s Tale and the Sword of the Spirit, you may do so, but not in an encyclopedia. Second, this edit is unsubstantiated. The Diamond source shows Ford to be directed against the Catholic charismatic renewal generally, and not the Sword of the Spirit. If the books of Ford and Reimers themselves claim otherwise, we need page numbers. I'll look into this. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reference regarding Atwood is not synthesis.

The source states in interview form:

"Q: What are all these newspaper clippings?"

"MA: They are Handmaid’s Tale background material."

Atwood then states:

"And this is a good headline that highlights religious tensions: ‘Catholics say cult taking over.’ It’s about a cult called the People of Hope that ‘subordinates its women, discourages social contact with non-members, arranges marriages, moves teenage disciples to households for indoctrination . . . their treatment of women is very Islamic. It’s a form of brainwashing.’"

This was reported accurately.

The original collection of background material can be found at The Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library.

I do not agree this information is irrelevant.

Atwood and the Handmaid's Tale are both highly notable.

The source is valid - and the information within is presented accurately.

It is also noted that the information is corroborated by other secondary sources:

https://www.vox.com/culture/21453103/amy-coney-barrett-handmaids-tale-supreme-court

"The Handmaid’s Tale is actually inspired by People of Hope. They’re different from People of Praise."

Not as a reference, but in order to help familiarise yourself with the field (with which you seem unfamiliar):

An interview with Atwood published in the New York Times is clearer on the link between a 'Catholic Charismatic Sect' and the Handmaids Tale.

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/02/17/books/no-balm-in-gilead-for-margaret-atwood.html

"There is a sect now, a Catholic charismatic spinoff sect, which calls the women handmaids."

If you are familiar with the early CCR, the inferred information is obvious here (the sword of the spirit being the ones who used the 'handmaid' terminology in their literature) - but this has not been referenced as this would then be synthesis.

The other literature relating to People of Hope is clear enough on its own.

I see no sensible reason to remove this information - so I will reinclude it.

If you still find that you disagree here, I am open to input - if it is sensible.

Otherwise I suspect a third opinion may be required here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You claim the Reimer's edit is unsubstantiated?

But I note that you have found that your assumption was in error and re-included this reference.

Thanks for that.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With Respect to Josephine Massyngberde Fords work - this is relevant to Clark and Martin - but rather response to their work prior at the time of True House, the Word of God, the Shepherding movement and the original association of communities.

I will leave this removed for now, but re-include with better referencing when I get around to re-including early history of the Sword of the Spririt.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Size of SoS

Regarding your edit to the lead.

You have made an error.

You claim that Sword of the Spirit was "one of the two major" or "the largest of the three main".

The source does not state that the Sword of the Spirit was "the largest of three" (or even "the largest").

Nor does the previously cited source claim that Sword of the Spirit was "one of the two major".

The source currently used also clearly notes more than three networks of covenant communities.

As does the Rush paper.

Other sources, such as the one included in my edit, also detail other associations of communities, several of which either have their own wiki, such as Mother of God Community or are noted in the CCR wiki (such as the Catholic Fraternity, which in fact is the 'Vatican-approved' association).

This lead needs changed to more accurately reflect this information, and I will be remaking this edit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding the lede, I have changed this line to: "A 2012 study listed the Sword of the Spirit as the largest of the federated community networks which arose from the Catholic charismatic renewal, others being Emmanuel Community and People of Praise". Note the word "federated", which excludes groups such as the "Catholic Fraternity". While Csordas certainly implies that Sword of the Spirit is the largest, for now we can just say "a 2012 study listed [it] as the largest." Regarding Atwood, we need to get a third-opinion on this. I will open a new section below. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No the Csordas paper does not list Sword of the Spirit as the 'largest'.

There is a table which shows the membership is comparatively larger than *some* others.

In text however, it is noted that memberships for other communities are unknown.

So we dont know whether or not it is the largest.

You have also removed referenced link to other similar charismatic community associations with their own wiki, for which reference is provided. This seems unconstructive.

Your edit contains an error. So I have fixed it again. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple:, since you are now familiar with the article, could you propose a simple remedy to the last part of our discussion here? The source of interest does not use the word "largest", but it does say the following:

"At the time of writing (2010), in the United States, the National Service Committee’s Charis center website lists 1,983 prayer groups and 89 covenant communities (National Service Committee 2010). I am going to focus on these communities, and particularly on several global networks of communities that have the greatest relevance to a geography of conversion, or a geography of the Spirit.... By 1980–81, however, the principal communities [of the early Catholic charismatic renewal] had developed irreconcilable differences with respect to the nature of collective life, particularly with the degree of centralised authority to be exercised on the level of the network as a whole.... Table 4 shows the relative size and geographical scope of these five networks or supercommunities."

This article meanwhile says, "The first and most prominent among the covenant communities is the Sword of the Spirit." I'm looking to somehow include in the lede paragraph that Sword of the Spirit seems to be the largest federated network of communities to come out of the Catholic charismatic renewal. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that's a tough and I think really close call. Honestly, "greatest relevance to a geography of conversion" is a difficult phrase for me to decipher. I'd say that the Csordas paper comes one step away from officially endorsing the "largest" designation—though I do think it's notable that, in Table 4, Sword of the Spirit is (by population) the largest network examined.

Similarly, "prominent" is a difficult word to decipher and doesn't naturally translate to largest, especially given that Csordas describes SoS as "[t]he most militant and centralised group"—perhaps prominent refers to reputation or news coverage. (A completely unrelated example: By that understanding, the Westboro Baptist Church, though quite small, would certainly be more "prominent" than churches larger than it.)

I'm torn on this solution myself, but taken together, I do think the sources do suggest SoS had a size advantage compared to most communities. Would you and User:LinnCDoyle2 find it an acceptable hedge to say that it was "one of the largest federated networks of communities to come out of the Catholic charismatic renewal."?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems good to me. @LinnCDoyle2:? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

To be clear:

We know the size of some associations of communities.

And we know the size of the sword of the spirit.

So comparative statement such as "the sword of the spirit is larger than some" is sensible.

We do not know the size of some other associations of communities.

So the comparative statement "the sword of the spirit is the largest (or one of the largest)" is a plain assumption.

So this is an error.

We know it certainly is not one of "two" or "three".

So this is an error.

Within these constraints any sensible edit seems fine to me. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

When various organizations are saying it's the most prominent and reporting it as the largest among communities that have the "greatest relevance to a geography of conversion" ... at some point, I'd say we can read in between the lines. But I suppose we could say "one of the most prominent communities" and cite the second source User:Arbitrarily0 listed. "Larger than some" is basically a useless phrase—I'd oppose inclusion of that.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, Jerome Frank Disciple. Since "most prominent" is a bit more vague, I think your suggestion of "one of the largest" (or, "among the largest") is best. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Jerome Frank Disciple

No publication actually reports it as the largest, as pointed out by @Arbitrarily0. In fact the source used explicitly states in text that the membership of other community associations is unknown so we cannot make comparative judgement.

So it seems to me that "sword of the spirit is the largest" is an original conclusion, not the one conclusion contained in the source.

The specific errors I have reverted are:

- the claim that sword of the spirit is the "largest" association of communities, which is not what the sources say.

- the claim that the sword of the spirit is "(an arbitrary size judgement) of "three" or of "two major" - as we have sources which are in the current version that list more than three associations of communities, and certainly do not state that there was only two major associations of communities.

As I say I am quite happy with any edit which does not re-introduce these errors.

I had it as "a prominent" association of communities in previous versions of this page - to me this seems the sensible option.

To point out some earlier errors in @Arbitrarily0 argument:

"several global networks of communities that have the greatest relevance to a geography of conversion" - this refers to several (namely People of Praise, Sword of the Spirit, Catholic Fraternity, Emmanual - which is a member of the Catholic Fraternity) - not just the Sword of the spirit.

"By 1980–81, however, the principal communities [of the early Catholic charismatic renewal] had developed irreconcilable differences" - This actually refers to an early association of covenant communities which in 1981 split into the Sword of the Spirit and the People of Praise. Later the Sword of the Spirit element split again in the early 90s into the Catholic Fraternity, and the Sword of the Spirit.

So really neither of these statements actually refer to the sword of the spirit in its modern state as @Arbitrarily0 has presented them.

The article saying "The first and most prominent among the covenant communities is the Sword of the Spirit" is presented accurately however. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I never endorsed saying it was the largest! But the study, which says it examines communities that have the "greatest relevance to a geography of conversion", reports that SoS is the largest among the communities. (See Table 4.) Given that coupled with the second source, I think "one of the largest" is acceptable. That said, I'm also okay with "most prominent", though I think that term is unfortunately vague.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

No Table 4 does not in fact report sword of the spirit as the largest.

Note in-text.

"Table 4 shows the relative size and geographical scope of these five networks or supercommunities. Numbers of individual members for the Catholic Fraternity and European Network are not reported because neither considers itself a single entity; indeed Emmanuel Community is itself listed as one among the member communities inthe Catholic Fraternity."

The membership of Emmanuel being 8000 and sword of the spirit being 10000.

This is just my opinion, but I do find it hard to believe that the 'independent ministry' version (sword of the spirit) is larger than the 'vatican-approved' version (catholic fraternity) where a single member community numbers rival the overall total of the sword of the spirit.

But really this is off-topic.

My point is that.

- Saying it is the largest is an error - no sources corroborate this, and the source used to corroborate this is being misrepresented.

- Saying it is "one of two major" is an error - no sources corroborate this, and in fact the used sources list more than two.

- Saying it is "one of three" is an error - no source corroborates this, and in fact the used sources list more than three.

Any edit which does not make these errors - I encourage. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a fair critique! I'd still lean towards "one of the largest" being appropriate (you seem to be suggesting a few alternatives that I'm not sure anyone here supports?), but, again, I'd also support "the most prominent".--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I would support any edit which does not reintroduce the aforementioned errors.

"A prominent"

"A large"

"One of the largest"

"One of the most prominent"

This sort of thing all seems fine.

Just not "the largest" or "one of [an erroneous limit]". LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay! So, based on the last comment, "one of the largest" is what all three of us agree on! @Arbitrarily0: I'll let you make the edit.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Abuse allegations

@Arbitrarily0 Also perhaps @Jerome Frank Disciple would also be willing to weigh in here.

All discussion of sexual abuse has been stripped from this page in the edit by @Arbitrarily0

One case I am sure belongs on this page is that of Jamie Treadwell.

The case is well reported:

https://www.michiganradio.org/news/2020-05-11/new-allegations-surface-against-man-investigated-by-michigan-radio-judge-sets-1-million-bond

https://www.michiganradio.org/investigative/2020-01-30/multiple-families-accused-man-living-single-for-the-lord-of-child-sexual-assault-hes-still-free

https://www.michiganradio.org/criminal-justice-legal-system/2022-04-13/man-investigated-by-michigan-radio-sentenced-to-probation-will-be-on-sex-offender-registry

All the secondary sources agree that the abuse is relevant to Treadwell's role in Servants of the Word (which can be briefly surmised as the 'clergy' of the sword of the spirit independent ministries) and discuss history of child abuse allegations relevant to the individual and servants of the word.

I intend to re-include this information and references on this page.

If this is an error, perhaps either of yourselves could perhaps explain this to me? LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I'm taking a short break, but I will do my best to review this. One slight concern I have—after a veryyyy superficial examination—is that only one of the sources you provided mentions Sword of the Spirit, and in a fairly vague way. "[An anonymous family accusing Treadwell of abuse] is part of another religious group, The Sword of the Spirit, that has strong ties to the celibate brotherhood that Treadwell was in." Ideally, there'd be a more direct connection or some more detail explaining the link—did they meet Treadwell through their membership in Sword of the Spirit? And what exactly are the "strong ties"? Just to play devil's advocate with a hypothetical: If a victim meets an abuser at their church, but that is the extent of the church's involvement, would that fact belong on the church's Wikipedia page?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the input.

To be clear the Servants of the Word are already included in the main Sword of the Spirit article with description and reference to academic publication. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah I see! I think to some degree I still have the concern I previously identified, although less so! As I understand: Servants of the Word (SoW) are a subcommunity of Sword of the Spirit (SoS). SoW was founded by one of SoS's cofounders, but we don't know to what degree the leadership remained entwined—you might even read one of the MPR articles as indicating that the groups are relatively distinct, since it only calls SoS "another religious group" relative to SoW. Treadwell was a member of SoW. source. At least tour allegations of abuse against Treadwell were reported to SoW leadership.source.

My continuing concern is that there's not enough tying SoW leadership to SoS leadership; it's a little thin. But, in my opinion, there's enough to have a short reference to Treadwell in the 2000s-present section. Maybe something like:

"In January 2020, Minnesota Public 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.[ref: Smith, Lindsey (January 30, 2020). "Multiple families accused man "living single for the Lord" of child sexual assault. He's still free". Minnesota Public Radio.] 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.[same ref] Treadwell cut ties with Servants of the Word in 2019 after an internal investigation, and, in May 2020, he pleaded guilty to attempted criminal sexual conduct—he was sentenced to 14 days in jail and required to register as a sex offender. [ref:Smith, Lindsey (April 13, 2022). "Man investigated by Michigan Radio sentenced to probation, will be on sex offender registry". Minnesota Public Radio.]

To be honest, that may be too much detail—perhaps the last sentence should be removed entirely; I think we should wait for @Arbitrarily0:'s input.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC) Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Jerome Frank Disciple

Thanks again for the input.

I think your proposed version is good - and less detail would also be fine.

Regarding confusion with respect to link between servants of the word and sword of the spirit:

In the servants of the word 'about us':

https://servantsoftheword.org/who-we-are/leadership-affiliations

"The Servants of the Word are a member community of The Sword of the Spirit, an international, ecumenical network of charismatic communities around the world. Like every member of SOS the brotherhood is subject to its international government. Every house that we live in is located within a local SOS community and is subject to the leadership of that community. Every four to six years each house of the brotherhood receives a visitation by leaders of SOS."

In Sword of the Spirit output:

https://swordofthespirit.net/wp-content/bulwark/july2011p11.htm

"The Servants of the Word is part of an international and intercultural network of more than 60 Christian ‘covenant’ communities of families and singles called The Sword of the Spirit. All our brothers in different houses throughout the world are actively involved in their local Sword of the Spirit communities"

You will find similar description of the organisation in Csordas' book 'Language, Charisma and Creativity'.

So the group certainly seems to be some form of subdivision of ministers under the direction of the sword of the spirit. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I think this insertion would be inappropriate. It would be like adding Kobe Bryant's sexual assault case to the article on the NBA. Treadwell (or Bryant) was a member of a community (a basketball team) that was part of the Sword of the Spirit (the NBA). But not even a highly notable notable abuse case like Bryant's belongs in the NBA article. If Treadwell's (or Bryant's) abuse case somehow affected the history of the Sword of the Spirit (or the NBA), then that's a different matter. Not everything that's true should be included. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Arbitrarily0

I do not think this is a good analogy.

For example Catholic Church sexual abuse cases has it's own wiki.

Sexual abuse has also been detailed on wikis for other charismatic community associations such as People of Praise.

Even within your analogy Kobe Bryant sexual assault case has it's own wiki.

So sexual abuse within an organisation seems like a notable topic by wiki standards.

Jamie Treadwell is notable within the sword of the spirit as a member of the servants of the word - and also as previous director of Kairos (sword of the spirit youth branch) and founder of youth initiatives (a sword of the spirit youth charity with several international branches) - though I do not think all that additional information is required.

I do not understand the relevance of the 'but its true' link - this content is verifiable, notable, neutrally presented, and contains no original research.

@Jerome Frank Disciple

Perhaps you would be willing to weigh in with a third opinion here once again? LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I have to admit I am a bit torn on this. On the one hand, I think I wouldn't go so far as LinnCDoyle2 in terms of whether Treadwell would be notable merely "as a member of the Servants of the Word". This goes back to my hypothetical: If a victim meets an abuser at their church, but that is the extent of the church's involvement, would that fact belong on the church's Wikipedia page? I think the answer is obviously no.

On the other hand, I also think I disagree with Arbitrarily0 as to whether the Bryant case is an apt comparison. This doesn't just concern Treadwell, but, rather, the leadership of Servants of the Word, a subgroup within Sword of the Spirit started by one of Sword of the Spirit's cofounders. Per the MPR article, SoW's leadership apparently received at least 4/5 reports of Treadwell's abuse before taking significant action.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

It certainly seems historically significant to the topic of sexual abuse within the sword of the spirit - given that it is the first incident which has reached the legal system and achieved result - and that publication on the matter provides description on the handling of the case by the parent organisation.

It seems to me that this type of information is considered notable for any other religious group.

To use your comparison @Jerome Frank Disciple you say "if a victim meets an abuser at a church" - however if the abuser was a member of senior clergy - it certainly would be listed in Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. If the case reported the handling of the abuse by the vatican - again it would certainly be reported in Catholic Church sexual abuse cases.

Though I would consider that there could be some dispute about the general notability of treadwell, there is no dispute to their notability within sword of the spirit - where they were a member of senior clergy, directed youth outreach, and founded charities which now have branches internationally. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure.

1. Was Treadwell a "senior member of the clergy"? Servants of the Word members, as I understand, aren't elevated Sword of the Spirit members—it's not as though if you're in Servants of the Word, you're a leader of Sword of the Spirit. Part of the issue may be a lack of reliable sources. Treadwell isn't described as a leader of Sword of the Spirit or Servants of the Word in any of the MPR articles you provided. Nor is he described as having directed youth outreach for either group. I'm not denying that Youth Initiative has Sword of the Spirit connections, but the MPR article that mentions Youth Initiative doesn't mention a connection.
2. While I think the Bryant comparison understates things, I think the Vatican comparison overstates things. None of the articles I've read or that you've provided have implicated Sword of the Spirit leadership; they've only implicated Servants of the Word leadership.

Right now I'd very narrowly support inclusion, but I'm 51/49 on the issue. More reliable sources might move the needle further.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So though I would agree that an independent minstry and the the vatican are not really comparable - I would stand by the fact that the event type reported here is certainly considered notable in any religious organisations history - I see no reason for the case to be different here.

We do have reliable reporting on the event including the parent organisation handling - this at least seems to merit inclusion to me.

I believe on this point we can perhaps reach agreement.

WRT treadwell's position with youth initiatives this is noted:

https://www.michiganradio.org/news/2020-05-11/new-allegations-surface-against-man-investigated-by-michigan-radio-judge-sets-1-million-bond

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/when-love-leaps-over-the-barricades-1329339.html

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/paedophile-youth-worker-turned-a-blind-eye-to-predator-at-belfast-charity/41581005.html

WRT treadwell's position with Kairos - this information has been removed from the sword of the spirit website - I may know where to find hard copies however.

WRT the role of servants of the word.

They are essentially a 'celebate brotherhood' which 'serves' within sword of the spirit communities in ministerial roles. They are sent as 'missionaries' to minister within communities by sword of the spirit leadership.

The best analogy I have is clergy.

You will find this information on the servants of the word about us page, on the sword of the spirit web and zine posts, or in the publication of Csordas.

For example (in addition to previous quotes):

doi:10.1111/issj.12024

"Servants of the Word (the community’s celibate brotherhood) have their main centre here we also have many young men from all over the world coming here for training for a couple of years each"

"In SOS a young adult can decide to live “single for the Lord” and in EC to live in “celibacy for the Kingdom”; in both cases they commit themselves to lives of continuous availability for service within the community. As shown in Table 5, the gender balances of members choosing this lifestyle option are dramatically different. In EC they are referred to as brothers leading the consecrated life and sisters leading the consecrated life. The women, who clearly pre-dominate in numbers, adopt the common clothing of blue skirts and white tops, in light imitation of the habits of nuns. In SOS the brothers belong to a group called the Servants of the Word while the sisters are members of the Bethany Association. The Servants of the Word, established and led by community founder Steven Clark himself, has been a powerful force since the community’s beginning."

Csordas: Language, Charisma and Creativity

"Living communally in the state of "single for the Lord," or celibate bachelorhood, they became the shock troops of the international expansion encouraged by Suenens. Christened the Servants of the Word, the brotherhood held a ceremonial public commitment for its members in 1974. A "sisterhood" of women living single for the Lord called the Servants of God's Love was not established until 1976, and remains less developed than the parallel brotherhood." LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Basically:

- Are the servants of the word the ministerial branch of sword of the spirit?

Yes.

- Is the first case of criminal charges for sexual abuse within the ministerial branch, and associated discussion of handling of the sexual abuse reporting, worth including in a wiki?

Yes.

Which I think is case enough for inclusion. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

To clarify:

1. As to Youth Initiative, my concern wasn't that Treadwell couldn't be tied to Youth Initiative, but that the reliable sources provided didn't tie Youth Initiative to Sword of the Spirit.
2. As to the connection between Sword of the Spirit and Servants of the Word: I see that you're saying that it was the "ministerial branch", but that's not a term I see used by the reliable sources you've provided. The Csordas source probably comes closest to establishing a connection. But, again playing devil's advocate, consider a church in which a collection of members decide to form a mission group—each year, they travel to some place, the Holy Land, and they perform traditional mission activities. I don't think it'd be appropriate to call that group "the ministerial branch" of the church or suggest that its members were equivalent to the church's "clergy" or had special prominence within the church.

Again, for the above-stated reason, I currently favor brief inclusion, but I'm 51-49.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can see your point that the role of servants of the word as a ministerial branch of sword of the spirit is not particularly well documented, and may not be recognisable to those unfamiliar with the field.

That said I dont think your analogy is correct. If the group of missionaries you describe were appointed by religion leadership as a celebate brotherhood tasked with ministerial duties, they would be priests - not independent missionaries. So 'clergy' really is the best understandable reference point for the role of servants of the word within the sword of the spirit.

These things are usually clearer in tax and charity documents:

The charity commission documents can probably clarify here:

https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search?p_p_id=uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet&p_p_lifecycle=2&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&p_p_resource_id=%2Faccounts-resource&p_p_cacheability=cacheLevelPage&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_objectiveId=A9603859&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_priv_r_p_mvcRenderCommandName=%2Faccounts-and-annual-returns&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_priv_r_p_organisationNumber=328247

see 'review of activities' pg 3

"The charity and the religious community have continued their work in partnership with the Sword of the Spirit and its member communities and outreaches, and have supported the community’s members as they have worked with these communities and outreaches, as follows:-

• Antioch Community and Charis Community: serving on the leadership council, providing pastoral care, participating in mission and outreach initiatives.

• Koinonia and UCO Belfast: overseeing the organisation, leading the student outreach programme, providing staff development and training, serving as a trustee, providing administrative support.

• Londonderry Missional Community: building community life, supporting the leadership team, participating in outreach activities.

• Youth Initiatives: directing the organisation, providing staff development and training, participating in mission, serving as a trustee.

• Europe and Middle East Regional Council: governing the region, overseeing the development of mission, participating in community building, providing leadership training and formation, teaching at conferences.

• International Executive Council: governing the Sword of the Spirit worldwide, teaching at conferences, organising leadership conferences, supporting its principal officers.

Each of these organisations set its own objectives which are monitored and reviewed by their leadership and governing bodies. Members of the Servants of the Word serve on these bodies as part of the partnership between these organisations and the Servants of the Word. Through these partnerships the Servants of the Word achieves its goals of proclaiming and sharing the Christian faith, and seeing people, especially young people, grow in their Christian discipleship.

Some members of the Servants of the Word serve the internal life of the religious community, leading the region and its households, giving spiritual direction to its members and formation to its younger members, and providing administrative support."

Also see throughout for relevance to Sword of the Spirit and Youth Initiatives.

This of course just pertains to the european branches - I would need to dig out reference numbers for charity registry and tax documents for USA and south american branches - but the content is extremely similar.

But I think it is reasonable to conclude from these documents that servants of the word is clearly the 'ministerial branch' (for lack of a better term) of the sword of the spirit.

In any case I think a brief inclusion is appropriate. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to a reliable source tying Youth Initiatives to sword of the spirit - see Detroit Free Press 4th October 1998 which has a feature article on treadwell who discusses youth initiatives and sword of the spirit. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Also see:

https://servantsoftheword.org/press-releases/important-update-on-mr-jamie-treadwell

"we share the mission of bringing Christian teaching to young people and adults and in assisting Christian communities around the world" LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Given that Jerome Frank Disciple is torn, I think this is worth an RfC. By the way, we don't have any evidence that Treadwell was a Sword of the Spirit leader, do we? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry to say I don't really feel confident enough to help settle this one. Between this page and the other we were 3/4 in terms of arriving at consensuses, but I just am struggling to fully wrap my head around this last issue—particularly the relationship between SoW leadership and SoS leadership, and perhaps an RFC or just a third opinion from an editor more familiar with the subject matter would help. Sorry, friends! Best of luck--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Jerome Frank Disciple @Arbitrarily0

I did manage to dig out some additional sources to address your queries regarding treadwell as a leader in sword of the spirit.

Regarding the role of treadwell as a leader in kairos (a sword of the spirit youth outreach):

https://swordofthespirit.net/wp-content/bulwark/apr07index.pdf

See pg 28 "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."

Regarding the role of treadwell as a leader within sword of the spirit:

https://swordofthespirit.net/wp-content/bulwark/april2013.pdf

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."

Regarding the role of treadwell as leader of youth initiatives (a sword of the youth outreach):

Detoit free press october 4th 1998 page 2H

https://www.newspapers.com/image/100174886/?fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVlLXZpZXctaWQiOjEwMDE3NDg4NiwiaWF0IjoxNjgxMzQxMjA2LCJleHAiOjE2ODE0Mjc2MDZ9.Ch3uYLKTYAdjZBHlCoLzf17nEjsOOBHlVLOdLZvWdEk

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".

So I think it is clear that Treadwell is a leader within sword of the spirit (aside - this being the role of a servants of the word 'brother' - who as you can see from the above charity registration is responsible for leadership, training, and ministerial roles within the sword of the spirit).

I would still hold that reporting of sexual abuse in servants of the word is relevant, reliably sourced and notable. I still think this merits inclusion.

https://www.michiganradio.org/news/2020-05-11/new-allegations-surface-against-man-investigated-by-michigan-radio-judge-sets-1-million-bond

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/when-love-leaps-over-the-barricades-1329339.html

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/paedophile-youth-worker-turned-a-blind-eye-to-predator-at-belfast-charity/41581005.html

If this does not seem clear enough for you then I would agree that RFC seems necessary unfortunately as I see no good reason for this information to have been removed from the article by @Arbitrarily0 in their overhaul. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think RFC is the best option. The more editors that get involved, the more likely a neutral decision will be made. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To clarify - what is your specific reason for removing this content from the page?

@Arbitrarily0 your specific issue seemed to be:

- disputing the relevance and notability

@Jerome Frank Disciple you are torn on 3rd opinion because:

- though the references are clearly relevant to the organisation servants of the word

- you are unsure of the notability of servants of the word and treadwell within sword of the spirit

Is this a fair summary of each of your responses here?

To be clear - I believe the content should not have been removed.

- I believe reporting of treadwells abuse and handling by servants of the word is notable and relevant.

- Relevance of treadwells abuse to their role in servants of the word, and additional note of handling of the case by servants of the word is clearly outlined in publication:

https://www.michiganradio.org/news/2020-05-11/new-allegations-surface-against-man-investigated-by-michigan-radio-judge-sets-1-million-bond

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/when-love-leaps-over-the-barricades-1329339.html

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/paedophile-youth-worker-turned-a-blind-eye-to-predator-at-belfast-charity/41581005.html

- Treadwells relevance as a member of the servants of the word is that of a leader within sword of the spirit (director of international youth outreach, founder of international youth outreach, mission leader)

- This is clearly noted in *separate* publication

https://swordofthespirit.net/wp-content/bulwark/apr07index.pdf

See pg 28 "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."

https://swordofthespirit.net/wp-content/bulwark/april2013.pdf

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."

Detoit free press october 4th 1998 page 2H

https://www.newspapers.com/image/100174886/?fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVlLXZpZXctaWQiOjEwMDE3NDg4NiwiaWF0IjoxNjgxMzQxMjA2LCJleHAiOjE2ODE0Mjc2MDZ9.Ch3uYLKTYAdjZBHlCoLzf17nEjsOOBHlVLOdLZvWdEk

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) 11:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Reversion regarding Cantalemessa

@LinnCDoyle2: I have reverted this edit in which you removed a verified and notable claim. The cited source identifies "the New Jersey charismatic community [the People of Hope] in which the Preacher of the Papal Household [Cantalamessa] says he experienced “baptism in the Spirit.”" If we're going to include the pre-history of the Sword of the Spirit, as you have insisted, then this is to be included as well. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 06:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

This source merely states that it happened in 1967 in New Jersey. This source does make the connection to People of Hope. But the timeline doesn't seem to add up. How about something like "in a New Jersey charismatic community that would later become one of the founding communities of People of Hope"? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

----------------------------------------

@Arbitrarily0 @Random person no 362478479

I had overlooked the NCR article. - it does indeed *seem* to indicate that the baptism in the spirit occurred in a People of Hope household.

However the other source does state that this happened in 1967 - at which point the people of hope had absolutely nothing to do with the sword of the spirit.

The conclusion that the baptism in the spirit occurred "thanks to sword of the spirit" seems original and unverifiable.

As you may have noted I did not fully remove the material - I am not averse to it's inclusion.

I do however think that what is said should be factually correct.

Perhaps you could say that the baptism of the spirit was experienced "in 1967 in a household associated with the people of hope prior to their association with sword of the spirit". This much at least seems correct. But the current version contains errors and needs fixed. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

True, the connection to Sword of the Spirit is made in neither source. And the timeline there is even more problematic. And while for the connection to People of Hope we only need the assumption that there were not more than one community in New Jersey which is very plausible one year after the beginning of the movement. A connection to Sword of the Spirit requires more and probably shouldn't be drawn without further sources. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I *suspect* that the article does refer to the people of hope.

That said - the people of hope did not exist in 1967 - so perhaps the story relates to the baptism in spirit occurring in the house of someone who would later become involved in the people of hope. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

There are a couple possible explanations here. For one, a person can experience "baptism in the Spirit" multiple times. There is no contradiction between experiencing it once in 1967, and experiencing it another time in the People of Hope. Another possibility is the mention of "1967" is erroneous; that was the year the Catholic Charismatic Renewal began in the US; it's suspicious that Cantalamessa would have experienced baptism in the Spirit that very year. At any rate, since all the claims are plausible, the text may be kept as is as long as it's cited. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The possibility that the date is wrong seems very real. "Cantalamessa candidly told the audience that early in his priesthood, he was “a strong adversary” of the Charismatic movement".[1] While the Charismatic movement originated in Anglicanism in 1960, the Catholic Charismatic Renewal started in 1966/67. If he was opposed to the original movement 1967 seems possible, but if was opposed to the catholic movement 1967 makes little sense. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Random person no 362478479 @Arbitrarily0

The reporting of their own history does make it seem like a safe assumption that this article refers to the organisation which would later become the people of hope - and that ralph martin - a sword of the spirit founder - was involved in conducting baptisms in the spirit with Jim Ferry (who is noted as a founder of the organisation that would later become the people of hope and charismatic renewal leader). This is noted from 1969 however (though that does not mean they were not *also* doing this in 1967). The history notes founding of House Of Prayer Experience (HOPE) in 1972, and integration into the sword of the spirit as the People of Hope in 1977.

I *suspect* what we want to state here is that the cardinal "experienced baptism of the spirit thanks to ralph martin and fr jim ferry, who would later go on to found the sword of the spirit and people of hope respectively".

And I *suspect* that this is likely the case.

But it is not supported by any sources - it is an original conclusion.

Currently we could put something like the cardinal "experienced baptism of the spirit at a ministry that would later become the people of hope" - it being a safe assumption in my opinion that this is the case.

WRT to the potential for the 1967 date to be erroneous.

Martin and Clarks involvement in the CCR dates back to 1965 reliably - though at this point the involvement was through the word of god, true house, and their work with pentacostal christian minsitries in the shepherding movement.

So it does seem plausible that martin may have been conducting ministry during this time.

And yes I would agree that the cardinal may have been baptised in the spirit multiple times - but the source does only mention the 1967 case. The cardinal does report a vision in the 80s also however, so they could be referring to this.

But really these are just hypothesis. Not what is contained in the sources.

If there were additional sources that clarified that the 80s vision was the baptism in spirit the other article refers to, or if there were additional sources that clarified that the 67 baptism in spirit was at the hands of ralph martin and jim ferry - that would be useful.

But with the current sources, saying the cardinal experienced baptism of the spirit "thanks to the sword of the spirit" is an error - thus the removal. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that "thanks to a Sword of the Spirit community, the People of Hope" is simply false. What seems to be the case is that he was baptised in a community that years later formed part of first People of Hope and then even later Sword of the Spirit. But here we have a similar question as with the relation between the leaderships of the two organisations, does this constitute original research? I'll have to do some thinking on this, too. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

More information, less clarity:

Q: Briefly, how did you come to the Renewal?

Father Cantalamessa: I did not come to it. Someone took me to it. When I prayed with the psalms, they seemed written for me from before. Then, when from Convent Station in New Jersey, I went to the monastery of the Capuchins in Washington, I felt attracted to the Church as by a magnet and this was a discovery of prayer -- and it was a Trinitarian prayer.

The Father seemed impatient to speak to me of Jesus and Jesus wanted to reveal the Father to me. I think the Lord made me accept, after much resistance, the effusion, the baptism in the Spirit, and then many things happened over time.[2]

-- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Some clarity? Here Cantalamessa says that his baptism in the spirit happened in 1977. That date makes much more sense. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Arbitrarily0 @Random person no 362478479

The people of hope are already a topic of this wiki and there are already references as to their involvement with sword of the spirit - so we already know this fact independently - I dont think it is a case of original research or synthesizing - it's nothing controversial.

Something like "thanks to a ministry that would later become the People of Hope" seems fine. If you find more sources - edit away. Just dont re-include the clear error. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@LinnCDoyle2: I think I agree. I think this change, helps; probably "thanks to" is also a little too strong, so I opted for the more neutral "through". Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The part where I saw possible OR was not he connection between People of Hope and Sword of the Spirit, but between some community in 1967 and People of Hope. Now that we have strong reason to assume that the baptism took place in 1977 that problem is resolved since People of Hope existed at that time. Unless anyone sees a reason why it would be unlikely that a Father in a Capuchin monastery would have been a member of People of Hope in 1977 I think we can include the claim that Cantalamessa was baptised in People of Hope. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The source referring to 1977 does not contain any reference to the people of hope - so really we have no reason to believe it does relate to the people of hope.

The source referring to 1967 makes no link between the baptism in spirit and the people of hope, simply stating independently that the cardinal spoke at an event partially sponsored by the people of hope. So we have no reason to believe this case refers to the people of hope either.

Really all we have which seems reliable is the lead from the NCR article.

This almost certainly refers to the people of hope, and does link *a* case of baptism in the spirit with the cardinal.

So this seems fair to note in text.

The other references provided are really irrelevant - attempting to tie either the 1967 or 1977 dates to the event noted in the NCR article would be plain assumption rather than a case of original research (though likely a safe one - as we know sword of the spirit affiliates were indeed conducting this sort of ministry at the time of both dates).

The source which notes the 1967 date does state independently that the cardinal spoke at an event partially sponsored by the people of hope - which seems fair to state as an independent fact. But this source should not be tied to the baptism in the spirit noted in the NCR article - as this would be another error. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

This is an annoyingly finicky case of poor sources. I think it's safe to say that none of the authors of the sources is looking at a Pulitzer prize in the future. Someone should teach them how to write an informative article.

I think the best source about his baptism we have is Cantalamessa's own account[3]. From this we can take that it took place in 1977 during a stay in Convent Station, N.J. It happened at a prayer meeting in a chapel (not in a Capuchin monastery as I wrote above, that was a misunderstanding, he went to the Capuchin monastery after his stay in N.J.). He describes the person who invited him to stay in N.J. as a priest, but he also mentions lay brothers. He does not name any organisation.

Then we have the NCR article that says he was baptised in 1967. We can safely assume that to be a typo or simple misdating. The People of Hope are mentioned here only as cosponsors of a talk he gave, it does not link them to the baptism.

The other NCR article does not mention a date, but says that the baptism happened in a People of Hope community.

Note that both NCR articles name the same author and the same publication date.

The conclusion I draw from this is that Cantalamessa's baptism took place in 1977 at a prayer meeting in New Jersey organised by (or at a minimum associated with) People of Hope which at the time would have existed for a couple of months.

The question now is whether or not this is too much synthesis. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Random person no 362478479 @Arbitrarily0

So the original issue here was @Arbitrarily0 claiming that my edit "removed a verified and notable claim".

I think we have established that this was clearly not the case.

The current text reads "Cardinal Raniero Cantalamessa, who formerly described himself as "a strong adversary" of the charismatic movement, claims to have experienced baptism in the Holy Spirit through a ministry which would later become the People of Hope, which is now a Sword of the Spirit community."

Now with respect to referencing here, only this one actually corroborates this. This reference seems to be synthesised in with the original conclusion that the two articles refer to the same baptism in the spirit.

So I am going to remove that second reference, as this is an obvious error.

The second part of the current text then reads: "He is now a strong proponent of the Catholic charismatic renewal, and came to address New Jersey Catholics at a 2007 event sponsored by the People of Hope and Seton Hall University."

This needs removed I think.

Firstly, the fact that the Cardinal is a strong proponent of the Catholic charismatic renewal is a good fact, but we have absolutely nothing concrete which links this fact to the Sword of the Spirit wiki. I think this fact does not belong on this wiki, instead it belongs on the CCR wiki.

Secondly, the fact that a Cardinal once spoke at an event which was partially sponsored by the People of Hope, while well sourced, is not notable. So I would propose removing this too.

I would also point out that saying the Cardinal used to be "a strong adversary" of CCR when reporting the 1st reference WRT to the baptism in the spirit, then in the following sentence stating that the Cardinal is "now a strong proponent" of CCR reads like there is a causal relationship too - which we have absolutely no sources which corroborates (though I would agree that there likely is a relationship, but that is just something I 'imagine', not something that is stated in any sources).

All in all I would suggest an amendment to a shortened version:

"Cardinal Raniero Cantalamessa, who formerly described himself as "a strong adversary" of the charismatic movement, claims to have experienced baptism in the Holy Spirit through a ministry which would later become the People of Hope, which is now a Sword of the Spirit community."

Using only this source.

As really the rest of statement here could be perceived as representing an original conclusion, belongs in other wikis, or simply is not notable. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed.

Mentioning that he spoke at an event is not relevant. That he is now a proponent of the charismatic movement is kind of implied by the fact that he got baptised and does not really need to be included. The cause for his change seem to be his visit of the 1977 Conference on Charismatic Renewal in the Christian Churches in Kansas City and his experience in N.J., but that is more something for the article about Cantalamessa himself. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Great to see everyone in agreement :)

I have made the proposed edit. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Suenens Repetition

The history section (70s and 80s) currently reads:

"Cardinal Leo Joseph Suenens was a supporter of Clark, Martin, and other early leaders of the Catholic charismatic renewal.[7]

According to Gerry Rauch, in the early 1970s, the Cardinal had had a positive experience after asking a couple of Word of God members, including Bruce Yocum, for deliverance prayer.[8] In 1972, Suenens visited the Word of God community, endorsed it, and encouraged its international expansion.[4]: 84"

It seems to me this is repetition of the same statement three times in a row, which does not seem useful.

I would suggest that this is compacted to a single statement.

I would recommend dropping this source, it is a primary source and promotional piece from the organisation about themselves, which may be technically valid source, but does seem redundant when two other reliable secondary sources contain the same information. Otherwise it is exactly the sort of source that other editors have specifically recommended are avoided in this wiki.

It seems one editor does not which for this section to be modified, so perhaps there may be useful discussion and consensus achieved here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinnCDoyle2 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Random person no 362478479 @Arbitrarily0 @Jerome Frank Disciple perhaps you would be willing to comment here - the more editors involved the better as far as I am concerned. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the primary source can and probably should be dropped. However, I wouldn't say that the three sentences are redundant. The first is a general statement that he supported the movement, the other two give concrete information on why and how he supported the movement. Given the high profile of Suenens as a proponent of renewal in the Catholic Church and one of the leading voices of the Second Vatican Council his support was probably of significant importance in the early stages of the movement. Therefore I don't think that three sentences give undue weight to him. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the middle sentence (and associated primary source) can probably go.

I am not sure I trust the Sword of the Spirit web blog writers to accurately describe what a good time the cardinal was having with their boss.

Really it is embellishing the two secondary sources with a primary source.

Otherwise I would agree, Suenens support is a good fact for the wiki. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, unless we have an independent source we should strike that sentence. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Very well, thank you LinnCDoyle2 for seeking a third opinion! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Reception

Something feels strange about including this section: In 2009 Csordas published study of moral reasoning in children of the communities of Sword of the Spirit and Word of God community following the division of the groups in 91. Csordas concludes that intentional communities may take 3 generations to stabilize, and that for the 2nd generation children who participated in the study, "the children actively resist, reflect on, and reconstruct the moral code in a process of cultural creation, self-constitution, and spiritual development". I guess part of what's strange is that, according to the source, only "two families in The Sword of the Spirit" were interviewed (granted, the Sword of the Spirit had just split from the Word of God). But more importantly, the claim that's made is primarily about the psychological effects of (1) schism and (2) the issues of first-generation cultural transmission. Here's the broader quotation: Within the context of The Word of God Community, children do not have the taken for granted luxury of many generations of conceptual inheritance.... In a situation where the administrative staff or community leadership was itself in crisis, and in which the subject of the crisis was in large part precisely the cultivation of a second charismatic generation, the children actively resist, reflect on, and reconstruct the moral code in a process of cultural creation, self-constitution, and spiritual development. I guess the third thing that's strange is that I'm not even sure whether what Csordas is saying about the psychological effects is positive or negative (but maybe this is my poor reading comprehension). My vote would be to remove this passage. User:LinnCDoyle2? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, it is a peer reviewed journal publication. Admittedly the journal quality in the field varies, but peer-reviewed journals are generally the most reliable sources available.

Secondly the abstract is clear: "Data come from interviews with 38 children across three age groups (5–7, 10–12, and 15–17 years), conducted over a four-week period subsequent to a community schism".

The full quote you may have meant to pull in fact states: " with both adults and children, mostly from The Word of God Community and Christ the King, but also including participants from two families in The Sword of the Spirit".

It is clear that this work is conducted following the intervention by Ottenweller in which the Word of God and Christ the King disaffiliated with the Sword of the Spirit.

It is clear that the focus of the paper is the split within the Sword of the Spirit in which Word of God and Christ the King communities disaffiliated.

It is clear that the participants were all members communities involved in this event, some who had recently disaffiliated with the Sword of the Spirit, and two families who had remained affiliated with the Sword of the Spirit.

The paper conclusion seems clear: there was not conformity across participant response to moral vignettes (see table 2).

Csordas hypothesises, with reference to other works, that the covenant community association is a new culture, and that such cultures may take up to 3 generations to stabilize, thereby potentially explaining variance in the moral reasoning demonstrated in the vignettes. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi LinnCDoyle2. I don't think you understood my concerns. In the quoted text, the author is making a general claim about the psychological effects of community schism and the issues of first-generation cultural transmission. This seems extremely tangential to an article on the Sword of the Spirit; perhaps it belongs somewhere in an article on child psychology (although, even there, perhaps it is too tangential). Not everything that is true is encyclopedic. What is more, while the conclusion of the paper is clear, the conclusion of the quoted text is not (at least to me). I could certainly be wrong, but could you respond to this? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

From the abstract:

"These questions converge in a particular way in the ethnographic setting of The Word of God Community: it is founded on a charismatic spirituality closely intertwined with a moral imperative, such that its viability depends on reproduction of that morality and spirituality among children of the founding generation. Data come from interviews with 38 children across three age groups (5–7, 10–12, and 15–17 years), conducted over a four-week period subsequent to a community schism, which left members in a state of reflection, self-examination, and openness."

It seems abundantly clear to me that the context of this paper is a study of moral reasoning which is focused on The Word of God Community closely following the split from Sword of the Spirit. Participants included some recently previous members of the Sword of the Spirit (Word of God and Christ the King).

It is academic study of the topic of this wiki, so I believe it is relevant.

I do not believe the current text is unclear either.

I see no reasonable argument for blanking this passage. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a mistake in the current text. It says that "Csordas concludes that intentional communities may take 3 generations to stabilize". But that seems to be a hypothesis he takes from Bennett: "Bennett (1975) has suggested that intentional communities such as The Word of God Community generally require three full generations to achieve cultural stability." (Csordas, p.436)

Probably not very relevant to the question of whether to include it, but I find it odd that the results of a study conducted in 1991 were published in 2009. More relevant is the limited scope of the study, both regarding the number of participants and the depth of the observations. This is one of the reasons reviews and meta-studies are preferable.

But most importantly the intention of the study is to learn something about charismatic (btw I got the distinct impression that Csordas mixes up related but distinct meanings of "charismatic") movements and intentional communities in general. Word of God and Sword of the Spirit are just a case study of a general phenomenon.

Taking all this into account I don't find the study particularly relevant for the article and I would not include it. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You are correct with respect to the study being an evaluation of Intentional community in the Catholic charismatic renewal, so perhaps the material is indeed better suited to one of those wikis.

That said, it is a case study specifically of Sword of the Spirit communities, not the across the spectrum presented by CCR or Intentional Communities, so I do still feel it is most relevant specifically to this wiki.

More specifically it the context of this case study is that of the "schism" between Sword of the Spirit and Word of God, which is historically significant to the topic of this wiki.

Otherwise, it is a non-polarized data-driven reference, which frankly I would like to see more of on this wiki.

So I still favor inclusion.

That said, I am happy to yield to majority opinion on the matter. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, LinnCDoyle2, for your docility here. I will go ahead and remove the material. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Doctrine

I think it would be good to have a doctrine section, but I removed the current text as misleading: Sword of the Spirit doctrine is surmised in a training course which relies heavily on the teachings of Clark's book 'Man and Woman in Christ'. Csordas surmises: "Clark's course made minutely explicit prescriptions for proper comportment, gender-appropriate dress, child-rearing practices, and the domestic division of labor. In addition, it identified global trends presumed to threaten the community mission of building the Kingdom of God—Islam, communism, feminism, and gay rights." The cited reference (Csordas) does not say "Sword of the Spirit doctrine is surmised in a training course". It says the Sword of the Spirit instituted a training course back in 1980 or 1981. Furthermore, Csordas clearly situates this material in a historical, diachronic treatment of the organization, not a treatment of present-state doctrine. Perhaps we should include some of this information in the history section? At the same time, it would be good to establish at least something about the present doctrine of the organization in secondary sources. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Jerome Frank Disciple would be willing to weigh in? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The pull quote details a "training course" in the book section "communitarian ideal".

This seems like "doctrine" to me.

The book says the training course was implemented in 81 (the sword of the spirit not existing until 81/82).

No description of updating or modification of the teachings is provided in the text.

So we have no reason to assume they have changed.

That said a more current secondary source would of course be welcome, from what I can tell the organisation is still takes a conservative stance on feminism and gay rights, I certainly don't see anything with respect to Islam or Communism on their webfront (although they do seem to still deliver this training with reference to the text Man and Woman in Christ - likely in an updated version as you say - but unfortunately I do not have a secondary source for this). LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Arbitrarily0 I have reverted to the previous status quo, lets discuss before blanking the section.

I have also added a slight amendment to address your issue of clarity.

The date 1981 when the training was introduced is now noted.

"Doctrine" is now instead "training course" (though the two seem interchangeable to me, but perhaps I am wrong here, in either case "training course" is certainly accurate).

Otherwise, as I say - more current description would certainly be welcome. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

(Sorry, edit conflict). Can you clarify what is meant by "surmised"? If "summarized" is intended, I think we're overreaching. Secondly, the text indeed suggests that there were implementation changes: "The stance of Clark and the Sword of the Spirit was ... [to adhere] to the substance of the Training Course while continuing to admit that it was awkwardly implemented" (p. 93-94). It would be very reasonable to suppose that this admission of awkwardness includes rejecting the "minutely explicit prescriptions" of the original teaching. But happily, I think this gives us enough evidence to say that the organization still takes a conservative stance on moral issues. So how about something like this (for the doctrine section, as opposed to the history section): "The Sword of the Spirit takes a conservative Christian stance on moral issues, such as homosexuality, feminism, and complementarianism." What else can we add? I think we have enough at this point to say something, but I just think it's unfair to quote the "minutely explicit prescriptions" part. Can you make a counterproposal? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we want a "training course" section; that seems like over-focusing on a historical element. But it would be really good to have a doctrine section. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I would agree it is reasonable to suppose amendments were made since 1981.

But this is just our opinions, not what is contained in the source.

From the quote you presented, it is clear that the Sword of the Spirit did in fact continue to adhere to the course post-91.

I do not agree that the fact that they considered prior practice 'awkward' in 91, but continued to adhere nonetheless, is a good case to conclude that they rejected the "training course", mainly because the source in fact explicitly states otherwise.

A brief summary of the "training course" that the Sword of the Spirit teach seems to me to be a good way to provide brief detail of their doctrine.

Csordas is a good secondary source on the topic, which we are quoting directly to avoid any potential issues in interpretation.

So I see no reason to edit the current version.

Certainly blanking the section does not seem helpful in any case.

I would agree that more current secondary sources describing the Sword of the Spirit doctrine would be an improvement, but unfortunately I do not have these sources. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I think mentioning the training course and giving a short description makes sense given that it seems to be one of the main reasons for the schism. But I would not use the word "doctrine". As far as I can tell the book that it is based on is a reactionary account of gender roles based on an interpretation of the bible. While that is certainly influenced by doctrine, I don't think it qualifies as doctrine itself. From the description given it seems more a set of rules people are supposed to live by than a set of believes (as an analogy think more Benedict of Nursia, less Thomas Aquinas). This also fits a section in the faq on the Sword of the Spirit homepage (emphasis added by me):

Because members of the Sword of the Spirit belong to several different Christian traditions, we do not have a single, comprehensive statement of faith. However, we adhere to the primary Christian beliefs as they have been held by the mainstream of Christianity through the centuries. Members accept the truths stated in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds and are encouraged to turn to their individual churches in matters of doctrine. The teaching given in the Sword of the Spirit is ecumenical and focuses on our commonly held Christian truths and on practical Christian living.[4]

As to what extent the training course still exists, I found no information on the Sword of the Spirit homepage. However on page 113 of his book Csordas uses the phrase "post Training Course period" which I read (tentatively) as referring to a time after the training course was abandoned.[5]

Of course having a section about doctrine/believes would be good, provided we have the sources for it. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Random person no 362478479

Ah I think I now perhaps understand the difference between 'doctrine' and 'teachings'. In any case the term is no longer included in the current version (though is still under the heading 'doctrine', so may need moved then?).

Otherwise I would agree that the brief description seems verifiable and worth noting.

This article by Russ Bellant, besides being absolutely fascinating (and apparently winning an investigative journalism award), does provide a description of 'doctrine' in the Word of God in 1988 - but again, not very current, and the relevance is more specifically to the Word of God rather than Sword of the Spirit. Certainly more current secondary sources would be useful here. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

JFD Being Confused (Again)

Comment/Concerns: In response to the request to weight in :)

JFD's questions/concerns

In general, I'm a little concerned with how often I've weighed in on this page—this topic is well outside my subject-matter expertise. It's one thing to see a long discussion and try to form a compromise or, if necessary, determine who has the stronger argument, but it's another thing for me to be diving into the sources. Here, I had to do that ... diving into the Google Books excerpts of the Csordas book ... and I became hopelessly confused. @Arbitrarily0: I promise I will get to what you are asking me to weigh in on, but I was hoping you sir Linn might be able to provide some clarification for me, so that I could better weigh in ... but if you think I'm just too far gone, feel free to ignore any questions I have and see if another editor can better grasp these issues! One thing that immediately struck me about the page cited for the doctrine was that "Sword of the Spirit" wasn't mentioned on the page cited. Scrolling up from page 87 to page 84, I did see "Servants of the Word" mentioned once, in the bottom half of a paragraph, when it's mentioned it was founded in 1972. In the next paragraph, he starts by discussing the "coordinators" ... which at first I thought meant "Sword of the Spirit coordinators" ... but, no. I had to travel to page 81 to find the definition of coordinators. They were a term for elders used within The Word of God community. Finally, because I was baffled why I hadn't yet seen Sword of the Spirit anywhere, I searched that term, and found this on page 13 (paraphrasing non-green parts): In 1976, there was a thing called the Association of Communities. (Can you tell I'm paraphrasing?). But there was infighting and that association split—some communities joined the pre-existing Word of God, and, because we don't have enough names for things, [t]he Word of God founded the Federation of Communities. And, in 1982, under the leadership of the Word of God, the federation ... renam[ed] itself the Sword of the Spirit. So, from what I'd seen so far ... : 1960s(ish): Word of God founded. 1972 Servants of the Word created. 1981ish: Separate thing called Association of Communities splits, some communities join Word of God, which calls the collection of communities the "Federation of Communities" 1982 Federation of Communities, under the leadership of Word of God, changes its name to Sword of the Spirit If all that is correct ... and I'd give myself no better than 50/50 odds ... I think this Wikipedia page needs to be a bit clearer on all of this, because I did not understand that timeline from this page. In fact, and maybe there's some intervening event that explains this, that information almost seems to contradict the article when it calls "the Word of God ... one of the main Sword of the Spirit communities". If Sword of the Spirit was under the leadership of Word of God ... even if technically correct, isn't it a little misleading to say Word of God was just a community within Sword of the Spirit? So, that brings me back to the passage at hand. I agree with the removal of "surmised". But I think the passage is still problematic. It says, "Sword of the Spirit introduced a training course in 1981 which relies heavily on the teachings of Clark's book". But, two things: Csordas says the training course was instituted 1980–81, not 1980. Sword of the Spirit did not exist until 1982. And its predecessor, Federation of Communities, did not exist until 1981. How, then, could Sword of the Spirit/Federation of Communities being instituting a training course in 1980? In the surrounding paragraphs, Csordas is discussing the actions of coordinators. But, again, that's a term he defines—elders within the Word of God. Given this, I think Csordas is pretty clearly talking about Word of God leadership We don't, so far as I can tell, have any sources suggesting that the training course continued after Sword of the Spirit was founded—so that's conjecture. We do know that Clark wanted Sword of the Spirit to adhere to the principles he preached in the training course, and that led to the split between Sword of the Spirit and Word of God. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

LynnCDoyle's response

-------------------- First and foremost - I do applaud you for your mediation here. We are currently in a position where there are only two active editors for the page, who often disagree. Having more editors here to break any deadlocks is extremely beneficial. WRT to history. 1965 - Word of God (Community) is founded 1970s - Clark and Martin work in Charismatic Community building with the Shepherding Movement 1972 - Servants of the Word are founded. 1975 - An "Association of Charismatic Covenant Communities" is formed between several groups (one of whom, but not the total of which, is the Word of God Community). 1981 - The "Association" splits. One group disaffiliates and becomes the People of Praise. The other group (Clark, Martin, and the Word of God) rebrands the remainder of the "Association" as the Sword of the Spirit. 1990-1991 - Many more groups disaffiliate from the Sword of the Spirit, including Martin and the Word of God. Clark remains with the Sword of the Spirit as leader. The Sword of the Spirit continues in this form to the present date. So to be clear: 1975-1980/81, Clark, Martin, Servants of the Word and the Word of God are all part of a single group, the "association of communities" which would later become "the Sword of the Spirit". 1980/81 - 1990/91, Clark, Martin, Servants of the Word and the Word of God are all part of a single group called "the Sword of the Spirit" 1990/91 - present, Clark and Servants of the Word are part of a single group called "the Sword of the Spirit", Martin and the Word of God are now disaffiliated. Much of this information was removed from this page in a recent overhaul. Firstly, the book in question is available online in full. First see pg 86-87. The text reads: "This was nowhere more evident than in the efforts by coordinators to endow their people with a distinct and disciplined culture adequate to the community's perceived mission, by instituting an intensive series of teachings in 1980–1981. Known as the Training Course, the teachings were based on a massive tome by Steven Clark entitled Man and Woman in Christ (1980). Clark's course made minutely explicit prescriptions for proper comportment, gender-appropriate dress, child-rearing practices, and the domestic division of labor. In addition, it identified global trends presumed to threaten the community mission of building the Kingdom of God—Islam , communism, feminism, and gay rights." Firstly, the topic of discussion in this section of the book is the Association of Communities, focusing on the element that would become the Sword of the Spirit (see the introduction from pg. 80 onward). Secondly the date of implementation of the "Training Course" coincides with the rebranding of the "Association of Communities" to the Sword of the Spirit. Thirdly the source is explicit that the "Training Course" was taught by Clark, who was founder and leader of the Sword of the Spirit. From the lead: "efforts by coordinators to endow their people with a distinct and disciplined culture adequate to the community's perceived mission" This to me clearly describes the delivery of doctrine. Between pages 87 and 93 the Csordas book then provides a rough history of the Sword of the Spirit between founding in 81 and the disaffiliation of the Word of God in 1991. Then see pg 93-94: "Several issues underlie the overt split in the Sword of the Spirit over local autonomy versus centralized government. Most appeared to be a legacy of the crisis over the Training Course. The stance of Martin and The Word of God leadership was to "repent" for elitism and arrogance relative to other Christians. They also "repented" for internal abuses of authority in enforcing practices that, because of their rigor and the difficulty of conforming to them, led to unhealthy feelings of inadequacy among members. The stance of Clark and the Sword of the Spirit was that they would remain faithful to the original divinely inspired community "vision," adhering to the substance of the Training Course while continuing to admit that it was awkwardly implemented. They see themselves as maintaining the structure of a covenant community, including headship, and The Word of God as retreating to the status of a sophisticated prayer group." Here the text is describing the Sword of the Spirit during the period in which Martin and the Word of God dissafiliated. From the text: "The stance of Clark and the Sword of the Spirit was that they would remain faithful to the original divinely inspired community "vision," adhering to the substance of the Training Course" It is clear that the teachings of the training course are still being delivered by Clark the Sword of the Spirit in 1991. From this alone I believe it is clear that the "training course" is the teachings of the Sword of the Spirit, and was delivered by the leaders of the Sword of the Spirit between 81 and 91 at least, and that from 91, Clark and the Sword of the Spirit continued to deliver this "training course", while Martin and the Word of God community discontinued this "training course" and disaffiliated from "the Sword of the Spirit". The issue at hand is that this content is being repeatedly removed from the wiki. @Arbitrarily0 has claimed that this content is "misrepresentation" - the specific case being made that we should not term the training course teachings as "doctrine" and that the time period covered in the text (1981-1991) needs noted. Edits have been made to address these issues, and I would consider them resolved in the current text. They also argue that statement in text that Clark and Sword of the Spirit "admit that (the training course) was awkwardly implemented" should be considered as evidence of Clark and the Sword of the Spirit "rejecting the "minutely explicit prescriptions" of the original teaching". I believe this is an overtly original conclusion which does not merit further discussion. My belief is that the text clearly refers to Clark and the Sword of the Spirit, detailing the teaching delivered by leaders of the group to their members, and therefore makes an apt summary of teachings for the 'Doctrine' section of this wiki, and is fine in it's current version (though I have encouraged provision of more current description if it can be sourced). This is corroborated by various other secondary sources used throughout this wiki, for example this NCR news article. So these are the current disputes which you are being asked to 'weigh in' on (I can only apologize). To be clear all editors do agree in this discussion (see above) that the "training course" refers to teaching designed by Clark, and delivered to the Sword of the Spirit membership by the organisations leadership - there is no dispute of this fact. Aside: To provide you clarity on the position of the Word of God: The Word of the God is a singular community under the leadership of Martin. The Word of God was a founding member community of the Association of Communities which was in part led by Clark and Martin, and which would later rebrand to "the Sword of the Spirit". As the largest involved community, the Word of God community was a 'hub' around which the organisation centred, and who's leadership (namely Clark and Martin) was part of the leadership of the Association of Covenant Communities. The Word of God community itself was not leadership of the Sword of the Spirit, rather it is a member community, the leader of which (Martin) is a founder of the Sword of the Spirit. The Word of God community (and Martin) have been disaffiliated from the Sword of the Spirit since 90/91. To provide clarity on the term "coordinator". This refers to the leadership of discrete communities within the Association of Covenant Communities (which later became the Sword of the Spirit, with continued usage of the terminology). In the context of independent ministries, 'pastor', would be a synonymous term. The Word of God community was a part, but not the sum, of communities within the Association and Sword of the Spirit which used this terminology. The same is true of the term 'handmaid' (used by groups throughout Sword of the Spirit). LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC) -------------------- LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Random person no 362478479 Perhaps you would also be willing to assist in editing this page further? LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@LinnCDoyle2—reading your reply now. I'm also hatting both it and my question, because both our posts were very long :) I'm still reading yours, but I'd also love to also hear Random persons's and Arbitrarily0's thoughts. Update: Having now finished it, I'm not sure you really addressed my concerns (although I'm happy for others to disagree there), but I think you have addressed some. I disagree that the date of implementation of the "Training Course" coincides with the rebranding of the "Association of Communities" to the Sword of the Spirit. Csordas says the implementation occurred between 1980 and 1981. He says the rebranding (in which the Federation of Communities changed its name to Sword of the Spirit) occurred in 1982, and the Federation of Communities only came into existence in 1981. In other words, the implementation began two years before the rebranding.

My understanding of the text is that the Training Course was taught by Clark under the Word of God Community. Later, Clark founded Sword of the Spirit and, even later, split from Word of God because he wanted his community to adhere to the principles in the training course.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

----------

So firstly, perhaps what we can agree on:

• The description of the training course presented by Csordas is a brief summary of the teachings of the Sword of the Spirit, at least between 81 and 91, and post 91.

The critical question here:

• Is this material suitable and useful in the "Doctrine" section of this wiki?

I think yes.

@Arbitrarily0 thinks that the material needs removed from the wiki.

What do you think?

----------

To address your wider concerns:

"Csordas says the implementation occurred between 1980 and 1981. He says the rebranding (in which the Federation of Communities changed its name to Sword of the Spirit) occurred in 1982, and the Federation of Communities only came into existence in 1981. In other words, the implementation began two years before the rebranding."

• Other publication details the previous Association of Communities founded in 1975.

"In 1975, "an association of communities" was formed by Word of God and People of Praise communities." This association ended after six years, since the emphases and visions of the founding communities were too disparate. Word of God then formed a new network, the Sword of the Spirit, to embody its ecumenical and prophetic convictions. Sword of the Spirit was established as one international community with member communities becoming branches of Sword of the Spirit."

• Steve Clark and Ralph Martin were both leaders of the "Association of Communities", 1975-1981
• This is the same group that later rebranded to the Sword of the Spirit.
• The Word of God was the 'central' community around which the community network was structured.

"My understanding of the text is that the Training Course was taught by Clark under the Word of God Community. Later, Clark founded Sword of the Spirit and, even later, split from Word of God because he wanted his community to adhere to the principles in the training course"

• Your misunderstanding is treating the Word of God and Sword of the Spirit as mutually exclusive.
• The 'community network structured around the Word of God' and the 'Sword of the Spirit' refers to the same thing, with the attatched notes:

• 1975-1981 the title 'Sword of the Spirit' was not used and the People of Praise were included in the association.
• 1991-present the Word of God community are no longer included, nor is Martin.

LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

One error I did make here - prior to 1981-82 the association did not use the title "Sword of the Spirit" (even if it is the same group).

I have corrected this to "Clark and Martin" rather than "the Sword of the Spirit" currently for the sake of clarity.

I have also removed some sort of "unverified info" tag - I think you may agree now that the info is quite verifiable. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Does Csordas say Martin's name in connection with the passage? Given the text, I just want to make sure we're not relying on implication and, instead, focusing on what's explicitly in the book.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Another good catch - thanks :)

The wider book (and text in the field) is clear that Martin and Clark both taught the training course, but this specific excerpt refers directly to Clark. I will amend accordingly now. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Jerome Frank Disciple for diving into the details here. And I agree, LinnCDoyle2, it's good to have as many more participants as possible. On this specific issue, I still think this falls into the "excessive detail" category which Seraphimblade referred to above. When I read the text, I get the impression that the "minutely explicit prescriptions" were part of the pre-Sword-of-the-Spirit training which were quickly rejected as impracticable (even though Clark and his followers continued to adhere to the underlying principles). But this is an extremely nuanced point to try to make in a historical survey. Moreover, the point about "Islam, communism, feminism, and gay rights" is common to almost every conservative Christian group. If we include this material at all, it belongs in the history section. What Csordas treats as part of a historical narrative, so ought we. Thank you all for your work here, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Is it excessive detail? I dont think so. It is a two-sentence summary of the teachings of the training course. It seems relevant and useful to describe this - especially given that this training course seems historically significant.
• Was the training course rejected? The quote pulled by @Arbitrarily0 in fact explicitly states otherwise. The source makes it clear the training course was followed at least post 1991, and this is corroborated by every other source on the matter used on this wiki. So I am not sure where you are getting the impression that the training course was quickly rejected? Do you have a source that explicitly states this, or is this an original conclusion of yours?

LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The information about the training course should probably be moved to the history section. The part about "Islam, communism, feminism, and gay rights" is in my opinion fine, but not necessary in the history. But the minutely detailed behaviour rules definitely are. As far as I understand they were the main reason both for Word of God leaving and for the conflict with the Catholic church. It would be good if we had more information about how long it was used. It seems that it was still used in 1991 (based on the split with Word of God) and was abandoned most likely before 2007 (based on the end of the conflict with the Catholic church). But it would be nice to narrow it down and be able to address the abandonment of the course directly.

Whether or not the information about Islam, etc. should be in the article at another point in the article depends on the current state of things. The article could definitely profit from more information on current teachings. E.g. baptism in the holy spirit is only mentioned in the statement about Cantalamessa. There's also no explanation of what "charismatic" means. Of course people can go to the corresponding article for details, but some kind of short summary should probably be in the article, not least of all because most people who are unacquainted with the movement will probably have a different meaning of "charismatic" in mind. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

"Islam, communism, feminism and gay rights" is part of Csordas description of the training course. We should not cherry pick.

I think the notion that the training course was abandoned in 2007 is incorrect.

• This is not stated in any sources that I can find (if you had one it would be great if you could share)
• A quick bit of OR shows the SoS still deliver some form of training course (though I would agree it is likely that the content has been updated since the 80s - we simply dont have a reliable secondary source reporting this).

I would agree that a single-sentence summary of "Charismatic" in the lede however would be useful in terms of readability. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi all. I mostly agree with Random person no 362478479, but I would not support a summary of "charismatic" in the lede paragraph. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on that?--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Religious practices

@LinnCDoyle2: Can you update the source for the religious practices section? It says, Cite error: The named reference Csordas was invoked but never defined. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The reference was re added by a bot here. TSventon (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but the page number in the citation (p. 87) does not seem to include relevant material. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Pg 87 as referenced (following on to Pg 88) and as corroborated by the other reference to a primary source (see Csordas book again for a description of Life in the Spirit Seminars).

"Both external and internal difficulties arose in 1985–1986. Externally, an episode occurred that marked the moment of greatest tension between the Catholic church hierarchy and the Charismatic Renewal in the nearly twenty years of the movement's history. The episode concerned, not Pentecostal ritual practices such as speaking in tongues , faith healing, casting out of evil spirits, or resting in the Spirit, but ecclesiastical jurisdiction over communities bound by covenant to the authority of the Sword of the Spirit."

LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Third opinion on organization blockquote

Seeking a third opinion here (including from User:Jerome Frank Disciple). User:LinnCDoyle2 and I disagree about whether a particular blockquote is appropriate to include. Articles should definitely not have too many blockquotes, as mentioned above, but this one seems to give some helpful detail on the way the organization is structured. I think we should keep it. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I do think, overall, this article has too many quotations, particularly from Csordas—which is not just a matter of block quotations, but quotations overall. Keep in mind that in-text attribution is not actually the norm for articles; it's generally used when there's a particularly controversial or unique claim being made. Yet, in this brief article, Csordas is already referenced above the line 3 times! And that's after I took out the reference to him for the utterly uncontroversial description of Servants of the Word as a brotherhood. That said, I don't think the paraphrase there captures everything Csordas is saying. How about this: re-add the block quote, but paraphrase one of the Csordas quotes already in the article.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think this particular blockquote is the most worth keeping. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple: I paraphrased (and expanded) here. Does this look balanced to you? (It's all on p. 83; the shepherding part comes from the footnote.) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah! Though, as a rule, I would say we don't need the in-text citation there. Is Csordas's view particularly unique or controversial? Like would others say "Absolutely not!" to what he's saying? If not, we don't need his name (just like we don't need to say "The New York Times said" every time we use the New York Times as a source)--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Great! Yes, that's fine with me. I think we should just keep his name with the shepherding line, because that's where he is explicitly conjecturing as opposed to reporting ("The form of covenant community headship apparently is an adaptation of the "shepherding" relationship practiced earlier in Derek Prince and Robert Mumford's neo-Pentecostal Christian Growth Ministries, now defunct"). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

It is non-controversial to say this form of headship spawned from the Shepherding Movement.

It's corroborated by scholars in the field such as Diamond and Moore as I have already directed you to above in this talk page.

It is also corroborated in the writing of Russ Bellant, for example in this reporting on the Word of God (community).

It is also worth noting that Covenant Communities are defined by the headship model and originate in the Shepherding Movement (as detailed in the wiki) prior to adoption in the Charismatic Renewal. LinnCDoyle2 (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Great, it seems like the shepherding part is sufficiently verified; we don't have to name Csordas as long as we cite Diamond. @LinnCDoyle2: can you include the Diamond source? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)