Talk:Sword of the Spirit/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

General notes

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

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

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

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

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

Hi JFD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please review pg 89 - 130

There is extensive discussion of male headship.

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

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

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

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

From Csordas:

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

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

Pg 113

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

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

"a gender ideology that explicitly subordinated women to men"

See for example of corroborating secondary source:

"Women are kept in a subservient role"

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

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

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

Do not use Complementarianism.

Complementarianism defines a difference in treatment between genders.

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

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

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

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

Maybe read more into the wiki article on Complementarianism.

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

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

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

@Arbitrarily0

That link relates to marriage.

The Csordas text does not.

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

Csordas does not mention complementatianism.

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

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

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

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