Talk:Mars Hill Church

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

Largest church?[edit]

This page originally said Mars Hill was "one of the largest churches" in the Seattle area, and I changed it to say the largest, and then it was changed to say second largest with Overlake being the largest. I remember about a year ago when Mars Hill became officially larger than Overlake, which is why I made the change, so I'm wondering whether or not the Overlake change was factual. Can we have some numbers? Or, we can just leave it as it is. I'm not trying to get into church wars of who's the biggest; just trying to make an informative article. Squidge37 22:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually like to see numbers that say it is the largest OR second largest. I'll add a citation needed tag. Isoxyl 11:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, given that is says "one of the largest" now, I'll leave it at that. But should a change be made to revert to largest, second largest, a {{citation needed}} tag will be necessary, unless someone is providing a reference. (Other than "Matt Driscoll told me so! =) ) Isoxyl 11:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matt Driscoll? Squidge37 17:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - Mark. I was just being silly though. :P Isoxyl 18:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senior pastor / teaching pastor[edit]

The page originally said "teaching pastor" and it was changed to "preaching pastor". Squidge37 15:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the passage of new church bylaws on 10/29/07, Mars Hill's 27+ pastors are no longer on the same level in terms of authority, as they once were. Now, Mark Driscoll and four other men handpicked by him, wield authority over the rest of the elders, who are actually "elders" in title only. Mars Hill has stated that Jesus is the senior pastor.

"three churches"[edit]

I removed an addition that said Mars Hill operates three churches in the Seattle area. This isn't entirely true because Mars Hill is one church that meets in three locations. Also, this was already mentioned earlier in the beginning of the article, so it was somewhat redundant

Cleanup needed[edit]

I added the cleanup tag (after doing a bit of cleanup myself), as the article read a little too informally and a little too much like an ad for MHC. It's a little better now, but could still use some improvement. raekwon 13:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with raekwon and have cleaned up the informal language and cut content that sounded like advertising. Staceyburz 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up, stat updates, mergers and added History & Structure.[edit]

I added History and Structure information. Additionally, I merged Acts 29 and Resurgence articles.--EZEK118 08:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

I don't get it. Mars Hill might be one of the largest churches in Seattle, but its also one of the most controversial. How is there no controversy section on this entry? Are all the editors of this entry members of Mars Hill?

abdul muhib

Agreed. I'd take a crack at writing a controversy section, but I'd be afraid it wouldn't meet NPOV criteria, as my dislike for Mars Hill is pretty potent. Although there's already quite a bit of NPOV language (not to mention a complete lack of references) in this and Mark Driscoll's article. Tdogg241 22:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i apologize for putting my comment in the wrong place, but are you insinuating that Mars Hill is a cult?12.197.241.166 16:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)BJLA[reply]

There should definitely be a section on controversy because I know many people, myself included, who have many problems with Driscoll's doctrine. I tried making a views/controversy section but, even though it just stated their was a controversy and did not call one side right or wrong, it was deleted. Que? 01:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

IMO, there are still a lot of problems with neutrality in this article. First, it makes numerous claims without backing them up with any references (there's only one reference in the entire article, and it's the one I just added), but mostly the article uses way too much informal language. Also, as I've already noted in another comment, there really should be a Controversy section in this article (a simple Google search returns quite a few hits, some of which can be used as references). If nobody else wants to take a crack at it, I can try my hardest to come up with something that retains a neutral point of view. Tdogg241 22:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'd say go for it. I'd be happy to take a look at your section after you're done with it and double-check it for NPOV. abdul muhib 13:33, 25 October 2007 (PST)
I agree. I live in Seattle and there's a great deal of controversy about Mark Driscoll and his teachings, particularly among Seattle self-identified Christians. His teachings tend to be very divisive and black/white -- either you wholeheartedly agree with his opinions, or have nothing to do with his followers.
I think I'm too close to this issue to help, but an outside observer should check the article for NPOV and weasel words.
Also -- this link could be helpful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult#Definition_of_.27cult.27_according_to_secular_opposition
Gary Seven 19:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or in some cases it's clear there is a consensus, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. Better yet, edit the article yourself with the improvements in place. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

== Misc Comment[edit]

is someone insinuating that Mars Hill is a Cult? 12.197.241.166 16:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)BJLA[reply] 

Reads like an Ad ==

The organization of this article is really bad, and the tone doesn't sound like an encyclopedia entry but like an Ad or a press release. --Kraftlos (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with the article[edit]

So when I was looking around for some references for the history section, I discovered that the entire thing was lifted from the Mars Hill web site. This is a violation of copyright law and Wikipedia policy (I have left a comment above the history section, as a reminder of policy).

Secondly, there appears to be a conflict of interest here. I just noticed that one editor known as Marshillchurch (talk · contribs) has been editing the page, apparently updating as the web site updates (as mentioned before). I also see other editors entering snide comments about the church and the leadership, which does not conform to WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, you cannot use this site to publish your opinion, or promote your church. This page is to remain neutral. Please read WP:COI and see if you should be editing this page, if you cannot remain neutral, I ask that you please edit something else.

Finally, this page needs a lot more references to reliable sources, both primary and secondary. If you add information, please cite it with the proper citation template. If you do not do this, and the information is not obvious or is questionable, the information will be pulled. I have tagged the other numerous problems with this article, and until it can be demonstrated that these problems are taken care of, do not remove the tags. Thank you. --Kraftlos (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-written the entire history section in an attempt to make it more neutral. I have added more references and grouped similar references by ref names. The Wordpress blog that was referenced in the history section was not a reliable source and I removed it as a reference. There are still several claims in the beginning of the last paragraph which were not sourced and were supported by neither the Stranger article nor the times article. I will remove them unless they can be substantiated. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Look here if you wanna help with the article!--MortenKristensen (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

An attempt to reorganize and rewrite the article is posted here. Please comment on this talk page indicating your vote as either Support or Oppose ('''Support''' or '''Oppose'''), and leave a reason. Remember to sign your post. Thanks. ∞☼Geaugagrrl(T)/(C) 04:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this re-write. --Kraftlos (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

The rewrite of the article is now "live." Thanks for all the help from Kraftlos and MortenKristensen. Maybe it is time to reassess? Take care.  Geaugagrrl  ☎ 05:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reassess as B-Class?[edit]

  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged. - Almost 40 references, with roughly 1/3 from reliable independent sources.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. - Article contains all the key elements that should be present in an article like this, including hist. Uses NPOV and covers relevant controversies.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. - Uses the same structure as other articles in Category:Megachurches.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. - I don't see any glaring stylistic errors, however we should do a quick run through the relevant manuals of style.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. - Infobox and image are used on the page, perhaps another photo could be included, but it's not required.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. I think this might be the one we need to work on. While it is fairly neutral, I think we need to be careful to make sure that this is a "just-the-facts" article, one last copyedit might be helpful.

I think we're close, let's get it done~! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done to improve this article to B-class? I couldn't find churches in Category:Megachurches to compare to (maybe except City Harvest Church). Anyone who has some ideas?--MortenKristensen (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was saying that if you compare it any of the churches on that list, about 8 in 10 use the same structure. Wikiproject Christianity doesn't do a really good job of covering churches and as far as I can tell, very few (if any) of them are higher than a C-class; so its hard to find a comparason. I'll do a run-thru on the article to see if anything else is missing and get back to you in a bit. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that it meets all the b-class criteria, however we have lots of short paragraphs and sections that really should be combined. Specifically the controversy section looks a little sparse. Other then that, I'm prepare to rate this B-Class. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music[edit]

Mars Hill has fairly unique music. For example, last time I was there, they had a New Wave band called Mint that did a mix of their own songs and some hymns. I know the times has mentioned the music in some of their coverage, do you think we have enough info out there about the music to write about it? I have a little conflict of interest because I know one of the lead musicians there, so I don't really want to head up the creation of the section. But I can if everyone's ok with that. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources, you can write. And if you have the possibility it would be nice with a picture outside and inside:-)--MortenKristensen (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can probably arrange for pictures. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

I'm starting to think that this controversy section is taking on a strong POV. This is not supposed to be a "con" section to balance the other "pro" sections, the whole article needs to be a factual account from a neutral point of view. Unlike last time I think this section is well-sourced, so I would propose the following changes:

  • Take out sub-sections and write it as several cohesive paragraphs. It doesn't make sense to have 2-sentence sections.
  • Convert some quotes to prose as is common with most of Wikipedia.
  • Add in a few more sources (more controversy) and perhaps response to criticism if available.

Opinions? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made some additions to the controversy section. I know I have a POV, but it's rather difficult for me to be neutral since I've been so involved. I'm hoping someone will work with what I put in instead of deleting all of my additions. I did cite sources whenever possible. Cubetronic (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this response is a little late. Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, you can't use yourself as a source of information. One of the core content policies on Wikipedia is verifiability; that is, unless a piece of information comes from a reliable source, it can't be used in a Wikipedia article. Also, since you did indicate that you were directly involved in the controversy, I wouldn't edit this article. If you have something you would like to have added to the article that can be attributed to a reliable source, then it can be discussed here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged the Controversy section. There's a number of things entered that I don't think rise to the level of a "controversy." Like for example the fluffy baby bunny rabbit comment along with others. Basileias (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the pastors who was fired, Paul Petry, has posted copies of original e-mails and other documents from the church at this website:

http://joyfulexiles.com/ http://joyfulexiles.com/timeline/

I'm sure some of it can be cited in reference to controversy surrounding the church, especially since it concerns the church's transition from an elder system (which many Protestant churches have) to a more authoritarian structure. Gar2chan (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem w/ that site (joyfulexiles) is that it is self-published, and not a verifiable source. While we can WP:AGF wikipedia editors, we cannot AGF for self-published materials.--Lyonscc (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

I have tagged this article with a POV notice. After reading the many talk sections discussing its neutrality (some on sections, others on the article itself), it seems appropriate to note that the neutrality of the whole article is at least disputed. Zach Beauvais (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been almost a year, but I am going to start going through some of the issues. I will be removing any flamboyant or controversial claims about the group if there is not a source. Already I found one claim that appeared sourced, but then you examined the actual sources, they did not back the claim. Basileias (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am considering moving the Controversy material to the "Structure and organization" section since much of the material has to do with that topic. Thoughts? Basileias (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am done with the easy clean-up. I would like to remove the "neutrality" tag. Does anyone feel there is other parts that have neutrality issues? Thank you. Basileias (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've done a great job cleaning this article up. I'd support its removal.--Lyonscc (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of the introduction needs correction[edit]

The article itself states that there are campuses in both Olympia, WA as well as Albuquerque, NM while one could make an argument that Olympia is "in the city" of Seattle, Albuquerque is clearly not.
I suggest the new into read:

...Services are offered at multiple locations in the city and surrounding area as well as a church plan in Albuquerque, NM; the church podcasts content of weekend services, as well as conferences on the Internet[4] with more than 100,000 downloads every week....
This can be easily referenced from http://albuquerque.marshillchurch.org/location-and-services/

I would further recommend that we include in the intro that Mars Hill is planning to open more church plant locations. If you have any comments please post or feel free to contact me. Preston A. Vickrey (humbly) (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Bethke[edit]

Recently information on a Jefferson Bethke was added to the article. I removed it because it is more to do with Bethke than the Church. It also seems somewhat of an advertisement for some video. If this is going to be added, there should be some discussion here justifying how it helps the article overall. Basileias (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Bethke, a leader at Mars Hill Church, released the video Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus on YouTube and GodTube, which became viral within a short time after its release.[1]

References

  1. ^ Ravelle Mohammed. "'Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus' Viral Video Sparks Faith Debate". The Christian Post. Retrieved 13 January 2011. The video, titled "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus," was uploaded Jan. 10 and has since become YouTube's most-watched video. The popular, and apparently controversial video, showcases what Jefferson Bethke says was his "journey to discover this truth – the difference between Jesus and false religion." Bethke, currently a member of Mars Hill Church (Federal Way) in St. Auburn, Wash., says he has a "heart to carry the life changing Gospel of Jesus Christ to the inner city."

Reformed?[edit]

Mars Hill has steadily moved away from the classic definition of Reformed over the last few years. Is there need to keep that in the initial description? ArturoDan (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just reread the Reformed page. Mars Hill really doesn't fit this at all, especially their church polity. They are moving away from Calvinist teaching as well. ArturoDan (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a research on the Mars Hill's website for "reformed" and "calvinism". Mostly 2008-2009 articles. They are deliberately moving away from reformed theology. Driscoll has resigned from the Gospel Coalition. ArturoDan (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A resignation from the Gospel Coalition in no way means you are no longer reformed or Calvinist. If you have something where Driscol states he is no longer reformed or Calvinist, source it. Basileias (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will save you the time (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/03/28/driscoll-steps-down-from-tgc-council/). "For the record, no one has asked me to leave the Council, and I have no relational conflict with anyone and no disagreement theologically. The men remain friends who are welcome to speak into my life, and I'm transitioning for no other reason than I find myself at the end of my tether with time and energy." Basileias (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that Mars Hill is the founding church in the Acts 29 network, and is still a member of this particular network of churches. According to the statement of belief required for Acts 29 Network churches, "we are Reformed in our view of salvation". A number of church planters have been turned down by Acts 29 because they are not Calvinist. I would be a seriously big deal is MHC was no longer Reformed, and would require a verifiable source to show this to be the case.--Lyonscc (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Founding church of Acts 29[edit]

Despite propaganda, Mars Hill Church is not the "founding church" of the Acts 29 Network and Driscoll is not the "founder" as Lyonscc stated above. The founding church is Spanish River Church in Florida, and its pastor at the time, David Nicholas, was the founder of Acts 29 (He took Driscoll under his tuteledge and was gracious enough to call Driscoll a "co-founder." A simple Google search will confirm this. [1] Spanish River Church actually provided Driscoll some funding in the early days of Mars Hill Church which helped pay for a worship leader's salary. [2] Scribe 13 (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources say Driscoll was a co-founder of Acts 29. And the article currently states both are co-founders. I agree that Driscoll's blog post (a primary source) implies that Driscoll was not initially considered a co-founder. (Although the video says he was.) Trying to establish the priority of Nicholas as a founder and that this was retroactively changed would be indulging in original research. In any case, it's pretty clear that MHC was the principal church in Acts 29 in terms of visible and setting direction, until the handover to Chandler.
I think it would be fair to use Driscoll's blog post to introduce some details on Acts 29, especially on the Acts 29 page, and some other early details. It's a good find; thanks for that.
-Sigeng (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://vimeo.com/23504864
  2. ^ http://web.archive.org/web/20001210191200/http://www.marshill.fm/who/our_history.htm

Stranger report, cult[edit]

I have reverted to restore a section in the controversy section describing the church as having a lot in common with a cult. I figure this is controversial, so I thought it would be good to start a discussion here. I tend to think it is a fairly substantive criticism, thus worth including. I worry only that there's insufficient detail in this article to explain why the Stranger reached that conclusion. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say to leave it with the section intact, as is. The article is linked, so if the reader desires more information, they can go to the article in The Stranger. It is only one source, as well, so it probably needs no additional exposition (which also avoids potential issues with WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE). If I were to make a change to the section to add any additional detail, it would also need to alter the word "cult", which tends to be a loaded word often indicative of WP:POV issues.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

The inclusion of Mary Lambert's response to a Mars Hill teaching should not be included as a criticism of Mars Hill. Mars Hill's stance on homosexuality is not unique to them; rather it is widespread among Christian churches. How one person reacts to a teaching, especially a non-unique teaching, regardless of the impact of that reaction, should not be cause for criticism of Mars Hill. Furthermore, the inclusion of this statement seems like a biased argument against Mars Hill, not simply a statement of fact. While it is a statement of fact, it is not a relevant criticism of Mars Hill specifically, nor of anti-homosexuality in general. This comment should be removed and perhaps moved to Mary Lambert's or Macklemore's wikipedia page. 98.161.20.220 (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on Mars Hill Church[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Mars Hill Church which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • https://www.change.org/petitions/evangelical-council-for-financial-accountability-mars-hill-church-tell-us-how-much-global-fund-money-was-spent-on-international-outreach/
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mars Hill Church. 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 14:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Mars Hill Church. 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 05:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mars Hill Church/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

* Beef up sections
  • Perhaps add another photo or two
As far as I can tell, this article meets B-Class criteria. It's going to need more work to get to Good Article status though. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 23:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 23:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Supposed Mars Hill Closure[edit]

Removed the "Mars Hill Closure" section as it is incorrectly titled - the church is still very much active - and have put the inclosed information here. Feel free to leave it out or move it into a more appropriate section of the article.

The church reported in September 2014 that attendance and giving had significantly declined since the beginning of the year due to public controversies.[1] Executive pastor Sutton Turner resigned in September, citing financial issues and personal attacks.[2]

MisterShiney ✉ 23:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Connelly, Joel (September 3, 2014). "Mars Hill Church's attendance and giving down 'significantly'". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved September 5, 2014.
  2. ^ Van Skaik, Michael (September 19, 2014). "Update from the BOAA". The Weekly. Seattle, WA: Mars Hill Church. Retrieved September 20, 2014.[dead link]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mars Hill Church. 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) 08:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mars Hill Church. 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) 00:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mars Hill Church. 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) 23:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mars_Hill_Church&oldid=1208825549"