<article_title>United_Methodist_Church</article_title>
<edit_user>Anupam</edit_user>
<edit_time>Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:21:59 AM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* Origins and history */ added wikilink to &amp;quot;[[Holy Club]]&amp;quot;</edit_comment>
<edit_text>In 1735 the Wesley brothers went to the U.S. to preach the gospel to the American Indians in Georgia. Within two years the &quot;<strong><strike>Holy Club</strike></strong><strong>[[Holy Club]]</strong>&quot; had disbanded. Wesley returned to England and met with a core group of preachers whom he held in high regard. He wrote that &quot;they appeared to be of one heart, as well as of one judgment, resolved to be Bible-Christians at all events; and, wherever they were, to preach with all their might plain, old, Bible Christianity&quot;. These ministers continued their affiliation with the Church of England. Meantime, they began to be convinced of biblical truths that were not then popular among Anglicans. Some of their convictions became that &quot;by grace we are saved through faith&quot;, and that justification by faith was the doctrine of the Church as well as of the Bible. They preached these conclusions, and salvation by faith became their standing topic. It implied to them three things which they saw as foundational to Christian faith:</edit_text>
<turn_user>Anupam<turn_user>
<turn_time>Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:21:22 PM CET</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>Recent Revert</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>Why not make your mass edit in sections rather than as a mass edit? You don't own this page, and people made good faith, CITED, edits to this page. You reverted the edits on a whim without discussion. If you made any sort of arguments your edits might be palatable, but in the present form you are introducing NPOV which is contrary to the source documents used to make the edits you reversed. Please suggest your changes here before cutting apart good faith edits by others. Revmqo (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Mass editing? I actually wrote a good deal of this article. The "inclusivity" section is not needed at all. How is it even a social issue? The underlying reason for even placing that section within the article is to point towards homosexuality, which is already covered in its own section. The "Saints" section previously had some more clarity, which is why I restored some deleted content. Personally, I do not even think the section really belongs in this article because the practice of the "veneration of the Saints" is virtually nonexistent in the United Methodist Church. Having this section in the article is similar to creating sections such as "Purgatory in United Methodism" or "Apostolic Succession in United Methodism," which, really, do not play a major role in the life of United Methodism. Issues such as imparted righteousness or Christian perfection might be better to discuss in this article. As far as the changing of the polity in the information box, did you not see the reference (with a quote that was provided therein)? I would appreciate your comments so I can re-implement the changes I made to the article.
References</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>Mass editing? I actually wrote a good deal of this article. The "inclusivity" section is not needed at all. How is it even a social issue? The underlying reason for even placing that section within the article is to point towards homosexuality, which is already covered in its own section. The "Saints" section previously had some more clarity, which is why I restored some deleted content. Personally, I do not even think the section really belongs in this article because the practice of the "veneration of the Saints" is virtually nonexistent in the United Methodist Church. Having this section in the article is similar to creating sections such as "Purgatory in United Methodism" or "Apostolic Succession in United Methodism," which, really, do not play a major role in the life of United Methodism. Issues such as imparted righteousness or Christian perfection might be better to discuss in this article. As far as the changing of the polity in the information box, did you not see the reference (with a quote that was provided therein)? I would appreciate your comments so I can re-implement the changes I made to the article.
References</turn_text>