Talk:Sunday Adelaja

Comment

"Pastor Sunday Adelaja is a unique and passionate man who has proven that not all Nigerians are unscrupulous, but that there are those who are honorable, sincere and genuine"... this article states... Are we trying to get him a date? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 13:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This article has become an Adelaja advocate page. The POV is terrible. Ostap 00:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Left a note on the main contributor talk page. If my past mesages (to this editor) looked cynical, sorry for that, I was only being less formal. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 09:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The critics from Center of Apologetics Research is not based on facts from a third party, which it should be since this is about a living person. Nothing of what they are writing is true. It should be removed from this page. Sikstrom

This is a legitimate criticism properly attributed to a legitimate organisation. What is the problem? Ostap 20:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the critics are not based on facts and they are untrue. It's about a living person. Would you like someone to write lies about you? When it's about a living person critics must be based on facts that can be confirmed by a third party. The organization is critical about almost all recognized Christian preachers - that's not normal! Sikstrom

Did you even read the other source added? [1] This is pretty much criticizing the same thing: doctrine of prosperity and Word-Faith. Ostap 22:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it. No, it's not the same. This is telling about number of church leaders that signed a statement; and it's true that they signed a statement and it's confirmed by a third party. What they are stating however, is their opinion.

When a critical statement is written about what a living person has done or said, it should be adequately confirmed. Center of Apologetics Research does not confirm anything of what they are saying. Actually it seams what they've built everything on is actually a complete misunderstanding of what Sunday Adelaja is teaching about. Sunday Adelaja is actually against doctrine of prosperity as well as Word-Faith as it's commonly preached and described at the Wikipedia pages. Sikstrom

I don't understand what more you want? The Centers for Apologetics Research has published a criticism and it is their opinion. What is the problem with putting that here, properly attributed? Whether you agree with this or not, Adelaja is a controversial pastor and has received criticism from others especially for the prosperity and word faith issues. This is important and needs to be reflected in the article.

"Sunday Adelaja is actually against doctrine of prosperity as well as Word-Faith as it's commonly preached and described at the Wikipedia pages." - that's not what CFAR and a ton of evangelical leaders say. Ostap 00:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a Encyclopedia and there should not be opinions here. If we write critical and negative things about a living person it should be confirmed with facts. I think you understand that we cannot throw "dirt" on a living person and write anything we want without any confirmation of what we are writing. If we state that a person has said something or done something we need to confirm it. Criticism needs to be based on some kind of fact that can be confirmed.

In the Bible there is only one accuser of the brethren - the devil. Evangelical leaders that have recognized this - and that they are not perfect themselves - generally keep silent and leave the judgement to God when there is no evidence of a crime, since we shouldn't judge according to Jesus. If they need to correct someone, they go to the person, not to the mass media.--Sikstrom (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a fact. The CFAR has criticized him, and that is all that we are saying. I don't know who this pastor you write of is and I doubt he even exists. As for the evangelical leaders, read the articles I provided for a list of some of them. Anyway, did you read the source? They went to the person and he persisted in his ways:

• "On December, 16th, 2008 a meeting of the senior ministers of evangelical churches of Ukraine with the senior pastor of the “God’s Embassy” religious community Sunday Adelaja took place in Kyiv, Ukraine... In the course of the discussion S.Adelaja acknowledged many of his mistakes, asked for forgiveness, promised to repent publicly and also promised to subordinate to the evangelical position expressed at the meeting with the leaders of evangelical churches of Ukraine. From our side we, as senior leaders of evangelical churches, expected pastor Sunday Adelaja to consequently undertake definite actions in the fulfillment of the promised corrections... To our deep regret, no actions which could be qualified as “worthy fruits of repentance” have been undertaken by S.Adelaja since the time of the meeting. "

according to the Administration of Embassy of God: The 7 bishops who wanted to disassociate themselves from Sunday Adelaja and this ministry, were never in relationship with the Embassy of God in the first place. There are in fact thousands of bishops in Ukraine, but these few are trying to make a big story, as if the whole world is disassociating from Sunday Adelaja. There are other pastors in Ukraine, who have their own networks and far bigger churches, who don’t agree with the opinion of these so called bishops. Some of these are Pastor Dmitry Mason, Pastor Henry Modava, Hillsong church and several other progressive churches who don’t agree with the “old style” Pentecostal bishops.--Sikstrom (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And please read 1 Timothy 5:20. Ostap 01:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you seriously mean that someone can start an organization and criticize someone without any fact which they base this criticism on and then write about it publicly in an Encyclopedia? This is called slander and it's illegal at least in the --Sikstrom EU.--Sikstrom (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The scripture you mention is about an obvious sin. In the case of Sunday Adelaja they cannot show exactly what the sin is. King's Capital collapsed because of the financial crisis, as many other companies in Ukraine, and only because a now former member of Sunday Adelaja's church was the founder of the company, all these accusations and slander started.--Sikstrom (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps you are correct. I have asked for help to determine if this is acceptable to have in the article or not. We shall have to wait and see. Ostap 02:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, good, we respect each other I'm hoping something good will come out of this. I could be wrong also, but when I've looked at CFAR's pages they write a lot of negative things about many people and they do it without proving what they are saying, or they make very vague interpretations of things the one they criticize has said or written somewhere and often without any clear source of the information. When someone - or an organization - criticize almost every person that they come in contact with, it is a clear signal that the one who really have a problem is the one who criticize. Of course we can find something wrong in all people - but before we write about it publicly it should really be something very serious and of course proved.--Sikstrom (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

CFAR is actually breaking the Ukrainian constitution if they don't remove incorrect information about Sunday Adelaja: "Everyone is guaranteed judicial protection of the right to rectify incorrect information about himself or herself and members of his or her family, and of the right to demand that any type of information be expunged, and also the right to compensation for material and moral damages inflicted by the collection, storage, use and dissemination of such incorrect information." CONSTITUTION OF UKRAINE, Chapter II, Artidle 32--Sikstrom (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The Russian Centers For Apologetics Research has articles about Adelaja where they examine in depth his teachings and writings. The page here is just a summary. [2] [3] Written by Dmitry Rozet of the St. Petersburg Christian University. Ostap 22:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Role of Sikstrom

It is completely unacceptable for one of Adelaja's followers to hijack this article and use Wikipedia for spreading PR. David Sikström (Sikstrom) has written PR articles for the Embassy of God (examples 1 2 3) and is a friend of Adelaja's on Facebook. On Wikipedia, Sikstrom is a typical one-topic profile, only dealing with the articles about Adelaja and his church, no other topics. As an emloyee or contractor, you are not the right person to write an encyclopedic article, and you definately shouldn't remove critique! About the chapter citing critique from the orthodox countercult centre, it was well-sourced and relevant (citing critique in the article doesn't mean the article agrees about the critique). I suggest that Sikstrom abstains from making more edits, otherwise the article should be blocked. I also suggest it is rolled back to my last edit, however including some of the later edits if they are relevant. In my last edit work, I really checked sources and tried to ensure the text was reasonably NPOV. There was still ample text describing Adelaja's self-view. --Sasper (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be the best opion... (since Sikstrom did not respond to my questions on his talkpage). I still think fans can contribute to articles but removing critique should never happen! If I was a fan of Adelaja (he surley is an interesting figure in today's Ukraine!) I would want it to be best wiki article and not a PR piece... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 10:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mariah-Yulia: What questions? Sasper: To me it more looks like some anti-Adelaja has hijacked this article to spread anti-PR, it was after what I saw was written here I saw the need to balance the article.--Sikstrom (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

So CFAR is Orthodox countercult centre, that explains many things. The Orthodox church views all other kinds of churches as sects, if you didn't know.--Sikstrom (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I wrote on your talkpage: In the "Biography"-section information is often double and often not neutral (see WP:NPOV). Are you planning to "fix" that later after further expension? I intended the sentence ending with a "?" as a question. Not really original to end a question with a "?" I know... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 17:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking over some older versions before Sikstrom edits I can not see what was so anti-PR about them... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 17:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sikstrom > Firstly, the 'critique' section was well-balanced. You don't seem to understand the difference between citing an opinion and endorsing that opinion. I had taken care to point out in my version in almost every sentence that these were not "facts" but opinions:

• "According to the Christian countercult organisation Centers for Apologetics Research ..."
• "Senior researcher Dmitry Rozet ... describes..."
• "According to Rozet ..."
• "The Orthodox Church claims ..."

I also quoted the counter-critique from Adelaja's church:

• "Contrarily, the Embassy of God said ..."

And a third part opinion:

• "A BBC article supposed... The article also noted ..."

Secondly, I am not sure whether CFAR is ecumenical or orthodox. I watched the video clip (footnote in my article version) with Dmitry Rozet, and I assumed he was an orthodox priest. However, the theological critique given by CFAR is very relevant, sober and clear. I found it to be of higher quality than the average critique offered by the well-known Dialogue Centre in my own country, Denmark, because they are sort of fanatically Lutheran. As a non-Christian myself, I don't belong to any of these congregations. But to every thinking person, Christian or not, the academic and theological reasoning is easy to estimate.

Thirdly, your personal opinions about whether Adelaja's enemies have violated the Ukrainian constitution are irrelevant, as much else you have written into the article. Ordinary people can't violate a constitution, but public bodies can. If there are any libel cases pending, that would be relevant info in the article.

Fourth, why did you erase my section header above ("Role of Sikstrom")? That is vandalism, same as removing something from my comment!--Sasper (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Sasper trying to make a personal attack on Sikstrom?

Why do you need a header "Role of Sikstrom"? Are you trying to make some kind of personal attack on me? We are dealing with information, not the people providing that information. Yes, it's written according to Rozet etc., but can he prove what he is saying? There are many people that tell lies. Could I write some lie that someone said and then write according to that person? You understand that we cannot just quote any person, the person must first prove what he is saying, especially when dealing with negative criticism of a living person. We must respect those who are living persons.--Sikstrom (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

CFAR doesn't have any fact to base their opinion on, because the information they are referring to could be used to say exactly the opposite of what they are saying, because it's about how they interpret some of the teaching of Sunday Adelaja. Another interpreter could give a completely different opinion. That's why it cannot be here, they don't have hard facts that Sunday Adelaja really did something that is worth to criticize. CFAR should keep their teaching on their websites, it's not to be in Wikipedia/Sunday_Adelaja--Sikstrom (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If you read the constitution you understand that ordinary people can violate it too, because all law of a nation are based on the constitution.--Sikstrom (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Where did Rozet get this information from?

• "some of Adelaja's followers eventually died from their illnesses because they didn't seek timely medical help"

This is not true, actually the opposite has happened, that some "super-spiritual" people didn't want to go to the doctor, but Adelaja adviced them to do so.

• "Sick people must confess they are healed and hold on to this confession, because if they doubt, the disease will return."

This is not true, this is not what Adelaja is teaching.

• "Adelaja demands total dedication from his followers, saying his authority may not be challenged and people must obey the pastor and not pose questions, otherwise they will lose their blessing"

This is not true, in fact Adelaja gives more freedom then other pastors, other pastors are afraid that they would loose their control if they gave as much freedom as Adelaja gives.

• "Adelaja claims to be a biblical teacher, but infact misquotes the scripture, using prophetic interpretations, supposedly from his own personal revelations"

This is like a "prophetic interpretation" or "own personal revelation" (using Rozet's own words) of Adelaja's teaching. When I look into their critical writing, they miss so many other Bible places that confirms what Adelaja is writing, so I'm surprised that they are theologians. Haven't they read the whole Bible, or did they forget many parts of it?

• "describes Adelaja's theology as based on the "prosperity gospel" and the positive confession"

It's not relevant how he "describes" it.--Sikstrom (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sikstrom, it is ridiculous to accuse me of a "personal attack". Check the edit history, and it is clear you have written most of this article. You have also reverted most changes that other people made to the article. You failed to declare your personal interest. And you have not written on any other subjects in Wikipedia. About the critique from CFAR, you still miss the point: the critique doesn't need to be verified in order to be mentioned in Wikipedia. The article just quotes the critique, with references. If Adelaja or somebody else has answered to the critique, they can have their word in the article too (with references!). For example, in articles about the Catholic church, McDonalds, Obama or Greenpeace, it is very relevant to write what their criticals say. This doesn't mean Wikipedia agrees with neither the main persons nor their criticals. So, if you can find a written article or a speech (available online) where the critique is countered, you are very welcome to quote it in the article. --Sasper (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sasper, are you serious? No one can just tell a lie about a person (especially living), write it down and reference themselves. It must be proven that the person they critize really has done something they critizie them of. This is an Encyclopedia, not a place for gossips.--Sikstrom (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If I will find other articles in Wikipedia, in an area where I am an expert due to excessive studies, and I see that the article is errouenous, I will go in there and make changes too.--Sikstrom (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is wrong of you to proclaim theological critique as a "lie". That is your personal opinion, not a fact. About referencing oneself, it seems close to what you have done, because your article is based on articles in Christian-charismatic magazines supporting Adelaja, some of which you write for yourself. In a theological debate, obviously, it is all about opinions; unlike in physics, mathematics etc. you can never "prove" something in theology. If you hint at the "Accusations of fraud" chapter, it only stated Adelaja had been accused of fraud. It did not say he was guilty of fraud, and it did not state there was evidence. However, the article now says that there is "no evidence at all" which is surely not a fact, but a personal opinion (how can there otherwise be a case?) There is also speculation about "the diplomatic relationship between Ukraine and Nigeria" which is unprecise and hypothetical.--Sasper (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

But the critic CFAR is making is not only theological, and the information that was used here in Wikipedia was not theological at all. They write that Adelaja has said certain things which is not true, it's not about theology. All the points I mentioned above is not theology at all. You don't seem to understand what theology is.--Sikstrom (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence in this case, then it would be used and proudly shown, but the case has been "on hold" for several months now and the time is running out.--Sikstrom (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If you read the reference, you can indeed see that the diplomatic conflict between Ukraine and Nigeria is precisely because of the case against Adelaja.--Sikstrom (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikify

One of the my main problems with this article is that (in my opinion) it is written much more as a magazine article then an encyclopic one. The fact that he was raised by his grandmother belongs in the beginning of the biography section and not at the end (thats encyclopic writing right?), as it is now. I changed that last week but was reverted 10 minutes later. While I did not remove or aded any info at the time. Before I waist 10 minutes of my life :) I would like to know if anybody objects by making his biography chronologic, and if so why. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 13:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's stop bickering and let's start working togheter! Yes we can! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 15:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I heard him speak Ukrainian on TV...

The article nos states Adelaja "speaks, preaches and teaches in Russian fluently today". He does not speaks, preaches and teaches (in) Ukrainian? I think I heard him speak Ukrainian on TV... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 13:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

He understands Ukrainian (maybe not everything), but he doesn't speak or speaks very little Ukrainian. It has happened that he has been interviewed in Ukrainian TV and the reporter asks questions in Ukrainian and he answers in Russian, and the conversation goes on like that. Maybe this was what happened when you heard him on TV?--Sikstrom (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

statement

Not signing the statement does not necessarily mean that they don't agree with the criticism. Please read WP:OR. Ostap 07:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not. What do you think? One of the characteristics that actually brings as a result a much larger church (megachurches in this case) is boldness to make a stand for what you believe in, without this, the church will stay small (actually this principle applies to all organizations). So these people are certainly not afraid to sign a statement if they agree. Secondly, those who arranged to make such statement and sign it understands that it would have more weight if they got the signatures of the pastors of the megachurches, so of course they tried if they thought it was possible that they would agree. But I leave it if they agree or not and it's not in the article. :) --Sikstrom (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Gay

What's his view on gay "homosexuality" members of the church? and is he not under investigation for tax avoidance? 123.200.223.160 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I answered your investigation question in my last edit. Couldn't find anything on "Adelaja and homosexuality" (yet). — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 15:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In the Embassy of God church there are only former homosexuals who are members, not homosexuals, and the church has a rehabilitation ministry for homosexuals that restores them back to heterosexuality, as this is according to the Bible. Several of these former homosexuals now live happily with their wife and children and testifies how God set them free.--Sikstrom (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Article I find too long to read easy, maybe info could go to footnotes and more summary's can be used?

All agree? I'll get started if I see no objections risen here! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 17:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)