This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Evangelical Christianity Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Evangelical Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Evangelical Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Evangelical ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject Evangelical ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject Evangelical ChristianityEvangelical Christianity Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Tambayan Philippines Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The topic and its attached section seem pretty irrelevant in the article and sound more like an entry for a gossip column than anything else. It seems much more appropriate to record the church getting involved in an embezzling controversy than to record their annual staff costume party. Can we remove this from Wikipedia and keep the article neat and on-topic?

-124.83.16.28 (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While it might seem rather like a gossip column, it does seem to fit the title of controversy. It's just nice that CCF helped it to get notability by issuing a statement. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of updating the references for this church. Nice to note, people in this church have very good relations with their employees. Ref: http://www.scribd.com/doc/8986409/HR-Analyses (Bicolexpress (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

added more references (Madapakar (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Ship of fools should not be a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.4.178.94 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last I learned there are now newly-opened churches in Makati City and Antipolo City. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.208.222 (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And thousands of house churches particularly in India and China. Straight from the pulpit but you can verify with their staff. I appreciate how this article is scholastic and neat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.204.172.70 (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, all! Kudos on the article though with the new additions it will need polishing and sophistication. I noticed that several ministries are not included. I also noticed that the Global Leadership Center is not mentioned. If I remember right that is the equipping or training arm of CCF. Given something of that importance, it should be mentioned at least at the bottom. Thoughts?

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• CCFPasayjf1270 11.JPG
• CCFPasigjf1305 15.JPG
• CCFPasigjf1305 20.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't supposed to pull controversies from fringe sources such as a random Twitter user (CCF's stance on the Gaza invasion of Israel) or take a "guilty until proven otherwise" stance on the CCF pastor being included in the Panama Papers when the publishers of the list had a disclaimer that inclusion does not imply guilt of committing illegal activities. CCF's stance on SOGIE and Reproductive Health shouldn't be presented as in the negative light in the Wikivoice, unless relevant interest group directly commented against CCF's stance on it. WP:SYNTH and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS apply. @APHistorian, @103.152.9.6Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a fair and objective paragraph regarding the panama leaks and CCF's official response. Unfortunately though, it seemed to be removed from the revision history. Keeping that I believe is very important as removing controversies can make it look like CCF is intentionally removing controversies or flaws ZachTheSaint (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its none of our concern, if casual readers erroneously think the CCF maintains this page. The controversy was not covered by mainstream media outlets about Peter Tan-Chi's inclusion in the Panama Papers specifically.

I can only speculate that the CCF has preemptively issued the statement since their members might be concerned about their leader's name appearing on the leaks itself. I am unaware and cannot verify if there was a big controversy within the church concerning that beside inferring from the existence of the CCF official statement. I've looked on the CNN Philippines source mentioned on the statement itself but that source don't name the CCF or their leader specifically. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]