Talk:Alliance World Fellowship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pre-millenial?[edit]

In the listing of beliefs, it states The Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ is imminent and will be personal, visible, and premillennial. This is the believer's hope and is a vital truth that is an incentive to holy living and faithful service. What does "premillennial" mean? Is that before the turn of the next millenium? --Habap 21:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Premillenialism is a view of the end-times that essentially states that Christ will return for believers before the thousand-year reign spoken of in the book of Revelation. See Premillennialism. raekwon 23:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent Members[edit]

How do we decide who a prominent member is? Specifically why is Cam Ward on the list? --Josephus78 03:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because he's a professional sports player? -- JHunterJ 10:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More justification needs to be given for inclusion Brent Jesko as a prominent member.Josephus78 23:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please post some sort of confirmation that the three hockey players are in fact members or adherents of Alliance churches? I've tried unsuccessfully to find any mention of what church any of them belong to. I'd really like this to be true, but I'm beginning to think it's not. - Ed

Yeah, and what's with Alliance members being hockey players anyway (or is it vice-versa)?--Midnite Critic 19:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted from Prominent Members William Young, author of the Shack. From William Young’s website www.theshackbook.com “I am not connected, or a part, or a member of, or involved inside any sort of organization or movement anywhere.” The wikiencyclopedia article on William P. Young says “In an interview with World Magazine's Susan Olasky, Young, who is no longer a member of a church,” --Myheck (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start removing unverfied pominent member entries soon, in accordance with the policy on verifiability - Ed

Some sources say Jon Lynn Christensen is a member[1][2], but others seem to contradict that. Anyone know?--T. Anthony (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, the one C&MA church I've been to claimed to have successfully converted the chief of the Saudi secret police and the foreign minister of Uzbekistan. While I'm sure they do have famous and important followers, I'd take their claims on the matter with a grain of salt... 213.181.226.21 (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When talking about Christians in Muslim countries, we really should not mention names as that could put their lives at risk. R3hall (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)r3hall[reply]

Redlinked "prominent members" removed[edit]

I removed these redlinked entries. Joie de Vivre T 12:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List[edit]

Howard O. Jones is listed as an official worker in the C&MA 2009 Official Directory. Perhaps he was removed as a red link because there is no content on his article? I plan to restore him as a prominent member minus the redlink, unless Wikipedia automatically makes it a redlink. Is it acceptable to restore David Radar as a deceased former member?--Myheck (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't A.W. Tozer listed in the 'Prominent former members' list of members? According to 'The Life of A.W. Tozer - In Pursuit of God' by James L. Snyder he was very involved with the denomination. It was through one of the local churche's internal letters that he honed his writing skills. Pete1948 (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Pete1948[reply]

Polity[edit]

As far as I can tell, the polity of the C&MA is fairly unique (although that of such denominations as the Assemblies of God and the Church of the Nazarene are similar), containing elements of Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, and (non-sacramental)"Episcopacy". If anyone would like a source for this change, see the following How We are Organized from the C&MA website. --Midnite Critic 01:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, their orientation is fundamentalist more than anything else, in the variation that's rather rigidly exclusive towards other Christian denominations. They seem more interested in competing for followers with Catholics, liberal Protestants and rival evangelical missionary sects, than in actually bringing anyone "to Christ". The vast majority of their missionaries are sent to Latin America, the Philippines, Europe and other places that are already overwhelmingly Christian, while virtually ignoring the entire Arab world which is overwhelmingly Muslim. Not sure if or how that helps situate them on the religious spectrum, but it shows they do indeed have a "fairly unique" approach to their "missionary" work. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I'm not sure how that relates to C&MA polity. As a counterpoint, many such bodies indeed proselytize among Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and liberal Protestants. However, at the same time, the C&MA does work with like-minded "evangelical missionary sects", such as the Assemblies of God and Youth with a Mission. --Midnite Critic (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't - simply relates to C&MA ideology and methods, based on the experience I've had with it, which would lead me to say their orientation should be listed "fundamentalist" rather than "evangelical". Sorry for the digression.
As regards polity, I'd say Presbyterian seems to dominate (hierarchy of council, elders, etc). Episcopal wouldn't seem to apply, precisely because of the "non-sacramental" part. The sacramental authority of bishops and such is one of the defining characteristics of churches in the episcopal polity; saying someone is a "non-sacramental episcopal" seems as much a contradiction as "non-Papist Catholic".
Elements of Congregationalism exist also but C&MA churches, though strongly autonomous, are not self-governing - they still answer to central authorities. Presbyterian would seem the only polity that fully fits the C&MA's description (though based on your profile, you probably know more about this than me, so feel free to disagree). 213.181.226.21 (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up primarily in the C&MA, but also exposed to the Assemblies of God and the Church of the Nazarene. (I am now a priest in an Independent Syriac Orthodox Church.) I understand what you're saying about "fundamentalist," but personally, I prefer a more restrictive use of that term, applying it to folks like those up the road at Bob Jones University, folks who are even more exclusive than those who are generally found in the C&MA. (For me, the heuristic dividing line has to do with how one feels about Billy Graham: those who reject him as a "liberal ecumenist" are fundamentalists.) Concerning the "episcopal" aspects of Alliance polity, it is not unlike that found in the Methodist tradition (although, granted, the Alliance has not retained the title "bishop", calling its transcongregational leaders "superintendents" instead.) BTW, also, non-papal Catholic is not a contradiction. There are Old Catholics and Anglo-Catholic, not to mention the Orthodox, who also consider themselves "Catholic" and the [Byzantine] Orthodox Church the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church," often to the exclusion of those who are in communion with/under the jurisdiction of the Pope. --Midnite Critic (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Billy Graham sounds like a good place to draw the line.
On "non-Papal Catholic": that depends how you use the word. If you use "Catholic" meaning "universal" then indeed, all the pre-Reformation churches and (arguably) a number of Protestant churches could all be considered catholic. But the term today has come to mean the Christians under the Pope's authority (one big Western church which is the one most people think of, and 22 smaller Eastern churches). In the same way "orthodox", strictly speaking, means nothing more than "theologically correct", but it has also come to refer to a certain branch of Christianity. I was using "Catholic" in the denominational sense, ie the RCC.
I've never been to a Methodist church, not sure how the polity works over there... That said, how are you still "episcopal" if your bishops do not have a sacramental authority? Also the hierarchy of the C&MA, from what I can tell, seems to conform to the "Presbyterian" model rather than the "Episcopal" one. It's not self-governing, but the elders and the central authority do not have the kind of authority that Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran or other "Episcopal" clergymen do... Granted that it has elements in common with all three, but couldn't you say that for any church to a greater or lesser degree? Since it seems to fit the P polity fully, and the E and C ones only partly, it just seems more logical to list them "Presbyterian" period. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Manual of the C&MA. If you read this, you will note that "presbyterian" isn't quite right, either, and not only because of the presence of District Superintendents (non-sacramental "bishops" or "overseers", the latter being a literal translation of "episcopos"); the distrinct conferences and the general council don't quite correspond to the organs of pure presbyterian polity. Thus, I think the polity in question is one which falls outside the classic three categories, but which, indeed, incorporates elements of all of them, more or less equally divided. In other situations, one of the three generally predominates, which does not seem to be the case here. The District Superintendents in the Alliance have less authority than the bishops of outright episcopal churches, that is true, but they have more than presbyterian moderators, and the elected delegates to these conferences and councils are congregational representatives, not "elders" in the presbyterian sense. Regarding non-sacramental episcopacy: many Methodist groups, as well as communities rooted in Methodism, have retained the title of bishop along with many episcopal functions without maintaining either sacramental ordination or any claim to apostolic succession. In these situations, or inones analogous to it, even if the title of bishop has not been retained, the term "non-sacramental episcopacy" may be fairly applied. Concerning "Catholic," etc.: "Catholic" is indeed commonly used to describe the Churches in communion with/under the jurisdiction of the Pope; however, since "Catholic" is a creedal word, this is a sore point for those in other Churches which predate the Reformation (and for many Anglicans and some Lutherans); therefore, it is the opinion of many of us that "Catholic" should never be used, especially in a context striving for NPOV, without qualification, as in "Roman Catholic", "Old Catholic," or even, "Orthodox Catholic". Since there are two major families of Orthodoxy in Christianity, the same holds true there as well: "Byzantine Orthodoxy" and "Oriental Orthodoxy". --Midnite Critic (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you look at the Church of the Nazarene article, its polity is also described as "mixed"; while it is does not describe the episcopal elements present there as "non-sacramental", it certainly could. As with the Alliance, Nazarene superintendents are not ordained as bishops and make no claim to apostolic succession. --Midnite Critic (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would contend that it could also be a sore point that traditional, non-Papal eastern churches use the word "Orthodox" and that conservative Protestants use the word "evangelical", since it implies that other churches are deviant or that they do not evangelize. Fair point however that "Catholic" is a part of the creed while the other two are not. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What should this article be about?[edit]

Ok so I just discovered that while the C&MA started the US there are independent C&MA organizations in other countries which are autonomous to the US denomination. The different churches are connected through the [Alliance World Fellowship] which provides "a non-legislative means of consultation and cooperation among the world community of the member churches". This article seems to be very US centric. My question is should this article stay focused on the C&MA church based in the US or should it become a page for the international C&MA movement and sub articles be made for each of the national churches. This is the approach that the Assemblies of God has taken. Either way this needs to be decided as if each one is atonomous then it makes it difficult to write about the specific polities and ministries of each church in one article. Ltwin (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CMA[edit]

The AWF is not the CMA. It is a completely different organization that is run completely separate. The AWF has its roots in the Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA). That statement is pulled right from the AWF website. It does not say it is the CMA, which obviously it is not as it is called something totally different. They are two separate organizations. They obviously have similar goals but CMA is a US based organization. Chris1834 Talk 22:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re:CMA[edit]

Hello, is true that the AWF has its roots in the Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA), but according to this website; http://www.cmalliance.org/about/family/national-office "The National Office: Located in Colorado Springs, CO, the National Office of the U.S. Christian and Missionary Alliance is home to the majority of administrative offices for The Alliance." The CMA office in Colorado Springs is the US office and is not the world headquarters. According to this website; http://www.awf.nu/about-us/introduction/ "The Alliance World Fellowship (AWF) unites churches and ministries in a mission-minded denomination with partners in many nations." The AWF is the international organization of the CMA and represents the global union of CMA churches. Thank you and have a great day. - ServB1 (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Christian and Missionary Alliance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the focus of the page[edit]

Some of the problems with the editing of this page have been that although the page is about the C&MA, most of the information is based around the US region of the denomination. I have begun sandboxing a revamped article that focuses on the denomination as a whole. Whether regional pages are then created for the 5 regions can be decided but I think all that information could easily fit on the main page. Chris1834 Talk 13:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alliance_World_Fellowship&oldid=1198454609"