Talk:Christian evangelist scandals
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I reverted the religious POV additions of 75.22.163.171. Jamiem 02:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed actually to more -
On November 3, 2006, Ted Haggard, who actually was more regarded as a pastor rather than as a televangelist, resigned his leadership of the National Association of Evangelicals[3] and temporarily stepped aside as pastor of his church
This is part of a larger and older context, including Aimee Semple McPherson and the like. Perhaps something worthwhile could be developed here, but I don't think the televangelist scandals are much different than the Evangelist scandals (like McPherson).
[I always thought of Paul (Saul) as the original (tele)evangelist, traveling from town to town collecting money for "those poor saints back in Jerusalem" and meeting lots of hookers. All the hatred in the new testament starts with Paul. Jesus was a lover.]
What?! What prostitutes does Paul meet up with? Where are your sources? I have read the entire New Testament and haven't come across mention of that. Given the Paul spends half his time getting beaten up ship wrecked or imprisoned his life style is nothing life the Jet-setters of this century. By the way it was Jesus who hung out with the prostitutes.
A psychological article on the whole sin-forgiveness cycle acted out in the large by Swaggart et al, perhaps from a Transactional Analysis perspective, would be welcome to me at least. the librarian
Contents |
[edit] A Healthy View of Televangelism
It's important to remember to not throw the baby out with the bath water. True televangelism is merely a tool to reach those who would never walk into a church with the message of Jesus Christ. We must also remember that it is expensive to produce and broadcast a television program. How would it be accomplished without monetary resources?
The NPOV of my edit only refered to the phrase "created by several media networks" While it would be nice to see more than just a mention of the scandal, without any detail for the reader, just the assertion that it was created by the media is as POV as if someone entered "created by his own actions" or other such. --GeorgeOrr 02:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The reason for the addition of "created by several media networks" was because the Benny Hinn Ministries responded to the scandals with a rebuttal. The scandal was easily proven false.
[edit] Melissa Scott
I'm not sure who keeps putting that there (well, I am, since its the same IP every time), but they seem hell-bent on publishing their agenda. Rather than deleting that section again, I put the POV-section template on it. I'd be a lot more comfortable if reputable sources were cited. --Cooleyez229 16:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- The sources are Melissa Scott herself on live, recorded public broadcasts and public records in the State of California and Nevada, as referenced. If you have facts supporting a different point of view, post them with your references. Your personal dislike of facts in public records is not a valid reason to delete information based on your assertions of a lack of neutrality. Your comfort is not the issue here. True and correct information is.
-
- OK, I understand where you're coming from with this. Maybe I'm a bit old-fashioned in thinking an encyclopedia should keep it at a NPOV always. And maybe I'm a bit new-fashioned in needing links to sources so that a random person who comes across this, if they're curious enough, can study further about it. One other thing: wouldn't it be better to just post all this in the article for Melissa Scott instead of having it in three different places? --Cooleyez229 06:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
As a reminder, there is a separate article for Melissa Scott. Furthermore this is not a soapbox. What may be considered a controversy to some might not be one to others. If it was a controversy worthy of being reported on CNN then I could see it going here. Until that day arrives, refrain from putting it here. --Cooleyez229 05:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Redundant?
Isn't the term "Christian televangelist" redundant?—Wasabe3543 05:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Definition of "televangelist"
A simple definition: "Evangelism through religious programs on television. Such programs are usually hosted by a fundamentalist Protestant minister, who conducts services and often asks for donations." Hovind and Haggard are not televangelists. They do appear on TV, but they're not evangelizing through telecasts. Please do not put all Christian religious scandals on this page--there's a separate page for religious scandals, and Haggard and Hovind can appear on that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zz414 (talk • contribs).
- Well, neither is Oral Roberts a televangelist. However, I moved the page to "Christian evangelist scandals" so they will be included. The list you speak of is only for "sex scandals" relating to religion. This includes those and others. Arbusto 23:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- This doesn't even make any sense. There's an identifiable series of televangelist scandals of the 80s that makes a category like this relevant. Changing the header to "Christian evangelist" isn't anything distinctive at all, except that Haggard and Hovind can now be included on it. I'm refering to [Category:Religious_scandals|religious scandals], on which Haggard already appears and is not limited to sex scandals. This should be reverted until there's a justification for an "evangelist" category instead of "televangelist." But now that you've changed the category, it can't be so easily reverted. Please revert. Zz414 00:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I know about the religious scandals category because I created it. If you wanted to keep this for those two notable 1980s scandals there would be no point to the article. This new title expands the subject matter to build an informative article. Arbusto 00:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-
For that matter, does Ted Haggard qualify as an evangelist - one whose main duty is to lead others to put their faith in Christ through the sharing of the good news of his death for our sins and his resurrection? Ted Haggard is an evangelical, for sure, a Christian leader, and a political activist, but I never saw his ministry as being evangelism. Regarding the Oral Roberts spot, I thought the point of the $8 million was to send out interdisciplinary missionary teams, not just to raise money. God allegedly told Oral Roberts that Oral had to train up and send out the teams, or else God would consider his mission on earth finished and call him home (to heaven), and in order to make that vision a reality, Oral said he needed $8 million. You may find a popular media sound bite where Oral says he needs $8 million or God would take him home, but I think that is a tiny snatch which is misquoting Oral Roberts by missing the context of his message as a whole.
[edit] Neutrality Issues
This article seems more of a laundery list than actual article. It contains no development of ideas. Before addressing the NPOV issues surrounding it, it would be more appropriate to develop the events listed here, including any controversy that exists regarding the events. If the whole article is in need of serious work, it would be inappropriate to debate the finer points of NPOV, until the larger article is much better developed.
- D. M. Arney, M.A. Neutrality Project 06:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- You will need to address the NPOV issues concerning the article on this Talk page if you wish to continue having the disputed neutrality tag prepended to the article. -198.88.216.101 17:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Radic
I moved this off the article page: Pastor Randall Radic of the First Congregational Church of Ripon, California pleaded guilty in 2006 to embezzlement. Radic hopes to receive some leniency during sentencing because he will testify about a murder confession of a fellow inmate.[1]
Radic seems to be a minor preacher and is getting a small amount of press coverage. He doesn't seem to be anywhere near the scale of the other examples. JoshuaZ 04:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I have several problems with JoshuaZ's comments. First, the page is about scandals, not just "major" scandals. Second, since when is CNN/AP national coverage considered "a small amount of press coverage"? Third, how is the "scale" of each scandal judged? Dollar amount? Jail time? Sex peccadilloes? Fourth, what exactly is a "minor" preacher? For the record, Darlene Bishop is simply being sued over comments in a book, no criminal actions are alleged. On the other hand, Randall Radic has already spent 6 months in jail for embezzlement. Also, Radic is gleefully bragging about his excesses on his blog, and attempting to sell his "tell-all" memoirs. Jacobst 15:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, you've convinced me. JoshuaZ 16:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Captions
Hey, folks. The photos are overlapping sections and don't have captions, unless you mouseover. Someone know how to fix this? (Ethan Mitchell, forgot to sign in) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.142.45.241 (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
