I love the Word of God, but there have been a lot of negative things about it over the years. One of the reasons I like Wikipedia is because it's often shows both sides of the story. I wrote the article after a number of interviews with members and leaders, former members, and outside observers, As well as reading books, articles, and journals that discussed it throughout it's history. If you can show me something that is wrong I'd gladly change it. At the same time I want to make sure we stay honest with our history including faults, even those that may have come out of the best of intentions.
I agree about being honest, its more the tone. You can be objective without saying things that will incense those who really hate community. Don't worry, I'm not even in Word of God and spent some time with a more crazy community, I definitely don't think its perfect. But I do try to make sure it is represented fairly and accurately. I'll send you some suggestions on possible re-wording when I have some free time. Part of it is that casual readers will get a bad impression, without taking the time and energy (as I did too) to do all the reading and talking to people and making sure they get the full story. Its the same with the histories of our churches - you wouldn't want to represent all Catholics with the Borgias and the Inquisition, or all Protestants with the bloody civil wars of Lutherans vs everyone else in Germany. But you would mention them in a history, explaining them well and leaving the reader to decide. I hope that makes sense...
Comments 2
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment