Talk:Oral Roberts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Oklahoma, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Oklahoma.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Christianity Portal This article is part of WikiProject Charismatic Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pentecostalism, the Charismatic movement and its relatives and offshoots on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

From Votes for Deletion

• Oral Roberts: (fictional talk between Antonio friend of ghosts Martin and Oral Roberts): Your article needs much work, at least, if not deletion, brother Roberts. If you have a computer in Heaven, you, or at least another wikipedian still in Earth, needs to check this out. --Antonio friend of the dead Martin

What is that doing here? Axeman89 17:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Native American Ancestry 2 WARNING 3 Recent edits 4 Clarification of Oral Roberts' Doctrines 5 Witness 6 POV 7 Calling him home 8 NPOV 9 Cleanup? 10 Origin of the nickname "Oral"? 11 Is AlterNet a reliable source?

[edit] Native American Ancestry

An interesting note on Oral Roberts is he is of Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma descent, his mother being 1/4.

But does this need to be mentioned in the article? Axeman89 17:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes; this is a biographical article and it is worthy of mention. Roberts' family is part of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, and he considers himself a Cherokee. See further below in the discussion for more details.

Yes, it is important because there was a big christian revival among the Cherokee of Oklahoma and that background is important to understand his later theology. Kenneth Copeland is also third generation from the big Oklahoma revival and also part native American.

If he's Cherokee, why is there a link to the Choctaw category at the bottom?

[edit] WARNING

A warning to all readers is that the external link "cephasministry.com" is arguably an anti-Charismatic/Pentacostal website. Oral Roberts and other healing evangelists are respected ministers among Charismatic and non-Charismatic evangelicals alike!

What color is the sky on your planet? Here on Earth, Roberts is known as the clown who claimed that god was holding him hostage and would kill him if he didn't cough up eight million bucks in ransom.

For that matter, Roberts is not a "healing" evangelist at all. He is a "pretend to heal people so he can fleece the marks" evangelist, in the mold of Elmer Gantry. He is a fraud, and would be a disgrace to Christianity, if he were indeed a Christian.

I beg to differ - greatly. Oral Roberts and many other well-known charismatic and pentecostal teachers (eg Benny Hinn, Rick Joyner) have been criticized quite heavily from non-Charismatic Christians. --One Salient Oversight 06:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While this is true, it is not such acrosss the board. There are many non-Charismatic evangelicals who support these ministries. My main point above is that the "cephasministry" website is anti-Charismatic in its views. The Charismatic Christian community is not some fringe group. It is a major sector of the evangelical Christian community that is growing every day.

Considering that all the present links are to organizations founded by Roberts, neutral or even negative assessments would be welcome to restore neutrality.

You people have no right to judge the legitamacy of Oral Roberts. Keep objectivity, ok? --Okiefromokla 15:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

While it might be nice if Oral had scrupulously credited God with raising the dead each time he talked about it, the fact seems to be that he actually did say he (Oral) raised the dead. ("I had to stop and go back in the crowd and raise the dead person so I could go ahead with the service.") It's not for us to clean up what he said so it seems doctrinally sound. I think there's some question over whether God wanted $8 million for "sending medical missionaries to Africa" or to "pay Oral Robert's medical school for the training of physicians, ostensibly to be used as missionaries in Africa." - Nunh-huh 01:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

TULSA, Okla. – Evangelist Oral Roberts, whose plea for $8 million to save his life focused attention on his ministry earlier this year, said this week he has raised the dead and will return after his own death to rule alongside Jesus Christ. Roberts’ comments, made to about 5,000 people at the closing session of the three-day Charismatic Bible Ministries Conference on Thursday, were broadcast nationally Friday on his son’s "Richard Roberts Live" program. Richard Roberts acknowledged his father’s statements were sure to arouse controversy. He held up a newspaper with a headline about Oral Roberts’ claims. "The good news is, they're printing the truth," Richard Roberts said. "I’m so glad the newspapers are beginning to get the story right..." The elder Roberts, whose 40-year ministry originated with tent revivals in which the sick came to be healed, told his fellow ministers Thursday he also has brought the dead back to life. "All of us in the ministry could talk about that—of certain dead ones raised, died right while I was preaching," Roberts said. "I had to stop and go back in the crowd and raise the dead person so I could go ahead with the service. "That did increase my altar call (audience response) that night," Roberts said, drawing laughter from the crowd at Oral Roberts University’s Mabee Center. On his program Friday, Richard Roberts said be recalled one instance in his boyhood when he said a dead child was brought back to life by his father. "Right in the middle of my dad’s sermon a woman came running up to the platform with her baby in her arms screaming ‘My baby has just died,’" Richard Roberts said. "The child had died during the service. My dad had to stop in the middle of his sermon and lay hands on that child. And that child came back to life again. "There are probably dozens and dozens and dozen of documented instances of people who have been raised from the dead," Richard Roberts said after he and guests on the program recounted stories about the dead being revived… [Oral] Roberts has criticized media coverage of his request for money to fund medical missionary scholarships at ORU. In March 1986, he said God told him to raise $8 million from followers or his life would be forfeited by the end of March 1987… On April 1, Roberts announced that the money had been raised and that his life had been spared.

Your taking these quotes out of context and forgetting that these were directed at an audience who understood what he meant. Please leave the content of these articles to those who have a better understanding of the facts and doctrines of these Christian leaders, not the liberal media.

He's on videotape making these statements. If he wasn't careful about his statements regarding the facts and doctrines of Christianity—surely a defect in a minister— that should be mentioned in his article. - Nunh-huh 06:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time arguing. His ministry has been in existance since 1947 and is still going strong. If it was truly fraudulent, you'd think the authorities would have done something about it by now.

Well, no, I wouldn't think so, but that's rather beside the point I was addressing, which is that he said that he'd raised the dead. His son has also said that he's raised the dead. - Nunh-huh 22:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By the way - the usage of the term "Liberal Media" in order to discredit historical sources is not a good thing to do. I have spent two years training in a Bible College and have been teaching and preaching from the scriptures for over ten years. It is my asertion and belief that Oral Roberts has some seriously erroneous theological teachings - one of which is the fact that he makes prophecies that don't come true and make claims that can't be verified (ie the raising of someone from the dead). One Salient Oversight 01:25, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification of Oral Roberts' Doctrines

I would like to discuss the statements listed in the talk section stating that Oral Roberts believes that he heals and has raised the dead of his own accord. Just because he said he had to "raise the dead person", doesn't mean he believes he has that power. That line of reasoning is a straw man. Quoting DIRECTLY from Dr. Roberts' book "If You Need Healing, Do These Things" (copyright 2002: Richard and Lindsay Roberts):

"I cannot insist too strongly that you put your faith in God. Have confidence in His servant or prophet, but put your faith in Almighty God, not man. The person God has chosen to help you receive healing is an instrument only -- the means to an end. Your deliverance is by faith in God and His power...God, not the prophet or preacher, is the Healer." (pp. 43-44)

When Oral Roberts said that he had to "raise the dead person", he was saying that to people who knew what he meant. That being that he had to pray for the person to be raised from the dead. Since his audience knew he meant this, it was merely a short-hand way of saying "I had to pray that God would raise the dead person by the power of the Holy Spirit, but it has nothing to do with me." If he said that every time he discussed a miracle, it would be very cumbersome. The majority of his audience KNOWS he doesn't believe he has the power to heal.

Also, there was at one point a statement in the article stating that Oral Roberts believed he was going to "rule with Christ after his death". Of course he believes this! All evangelicals that believe in the rapture, tribulation, and millenium do. In Revelation 5:9-10, it says, "And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth"(NKJV). Therefore, a doctrine believed by many Charismatics and Evangelicals is that after the tribulation, all those who believed in Jesus Christ as Savior will return with Him to reign during the Millenium.

I hope this clarifies some things...the above quotation was "straight from the horse's mouth". Therefore, it should be presented as such in the Wikipedia article.

So. When Peter and John heal the lame man in Acts 3.1-10, who healed him? Was it God or was it Peter and John? Obviously it is God who heals him, but the action is intricately linked to the work of the two apostles.

The fact that Oral Roberts claimed to have brought someone back to life is in the same vein. What you seem to be arguing about is that it was God that caused the man to be raised, not Oral Roberts. For my mind, it is the same difference. God did the raising, and so did Oral Roberts. So the article's claim that "Oral Roberts claims to have healed someone" is not really the issue here.

So while Oral Roberts' audience knows that he has no power to heal, they do believe that God heals through him. All we're doing here is talking semantics. The Biblical witness puts healing into the hands of God - and yet the language that is used in the New Testament indicates that it is okay to say "Peter healed a lame man".

Mind you, I think that Oral Roberts' claim here is false. I don't believe that God raised a man to life through his ministry. I think he lied to make his fans go ga-ga.

But Oral Roberts also claimed that a 900ft tall Jesus appeared to him and told him to found some medical center. If you look at what Roberts said at the time and then looked at what actually happened you can therefore make the assumption that Roberts' prophecy was wrong. In my books, that makes him a false prophet.

Many evangelicals do not believe in the rapture and the tribulation. We are called Amillennialists.

Also see http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/ReligDeadRaised3.htm

and Criticisms of Charismatic and Pentecostal belief

--One Salient Oversight 07:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, well that's your opinion, but if all you can give me is "evidence" for that originating from people who have an anti-Charismatic viewpoint (such as the "Cephas Ministry" website), all you are giving me is your opinion. Those people are coming from the basic assumption that it is false in the first place. In other words, they are saying "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up". There is more evidence FOR the validity of Oral Roberts' ministry than for the lack of validity of it. I know several people who have received a healing from God through the ministry of the Oral Roberts Evangelistic Association. If you want to discuss prophecies, how about the prophecy given by brother Roberts in the '50s stating that man would not destroy himself through nuclear weaponry in the Cold War. How about how he recieved a prophecy from God predicting the AIDS epidemic, before it was even discovered. That is beside the point. The point is that Christ said that "by their fruits, you will know them" (Matt. 7:20 NKJV). The ministry founded by Oral Roberts has existed since the aftermath of World War II. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is preached by them...the message that eternal life comes only through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. They have a 24/7 prayer ministry that anyone can call into for prayer for salvation, healing, and deliverance (and they don't have to give money to be prayed for). He founded a University that opens classes with prayer and requires students to live by an honor code, as well as requiring them to go to the church of their choice every sunday. This school was rated the best in its region by The Princeton Review and U.S. News and World Report (see http://www.oru.edu/news/newsarc_20040824.htm). So, look at the fruits. Just because the City of Faith failed, does not mean it was not in the plan of God to build. God's original plan for mankind was not for it to fall into sin and corruption, yet it did. It takes money to operate a medical school/center. That has to be provided through the hands of men, it will not fall out of Heaven.

Also, as a believer who attends a Charismatic church, let me clarify to you that we believe that anyone can pray with someone to believe for their healing...not only leaders of large ministries. The person who needs the healing can pray for themselves as well. We believe, however, that part of the office of the evangelist is praying for the sick to recover. However, just like Jesus said in Mark 16:14-18, all believers are to preach the Gospel...and also..."they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover" (NKJV). I offer these facts to you out of respect for you as a fellow believer. God BLESS you...I appreciate the fact that you have been preaching God's Word!

Thankyou for your respectful comments. I'll address the issue of the wikipedia article first before speaking about the fruits of Oral Roberts' ministry.

It is a bit of a logical fallacy to argue that simply because one group of people is opposed to the beliefs of another group, that the information they provide to attack that group is somehow tainted and wrong. Just because there are anti-charismatic websites out there that have information that attack Oral Roberts, doesn't mean that the information they are using is somehow wrong.

Yes the Cephas ministry has info that attacks Oral Roberts. But does that make it false? Only if you believe without question that Oral Roberts' position is the correct one and that Cephas ministry is satanically inspired.

So let me ask you this question. Did Oral Roberts claim that someone was raised from the dead during one of his meetings? This has been widely reported in the Christian and non-Christian media. Even if there were a vast left-wing conspiracy amongst the media (which I actually doubt - take the Fox network for starters!) the fact is that the information should be placed within the article. The information needs to be neutrally stated, but it should be there nevertheless.

Now onto other things.

Just because the City of Faith failed, does not mean it was not in the plan of God to build. This is an interesting statement.

Do you believe that God knows the future? More than that, is God sovereign? - that is, does he control every event that happens and has planned this from the beginning of time? If you do, then the notion that God would want a medical center to be built, to tell Oral Roberts that it would be some wondrous place that God would be glorified through, and then for it to be closed down - all that sounds a bit strange.

If you don't believe that God knows the future then you hold to Open Theism. That, to me, is a terrible heresy, because it shows that God is limited by time and subject to it. From my understanding, God created time and is not subject to its limitations.

What do you think? One Salient Oversight 22:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I Really had to search for the ORU ratings. You gave me a link to the ORU website that claimed that it had made some sort of ratings with The Princeton Review and USNews. I could not find any Princeton review article that verified this, and the USnews one simply listed ORU as good with masters degrees in the west. It was not competing with places like UCLA or Berkley, so I find the ratings system a bit problematic.

Why didn't ORU give links to specific documents that showed their rating rather than give a broad link to the two websites. Actually The Princeton review does not rate ORU in the top 357 http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/rankings/rankingsBest357.asp. What gives?

Moreover, The Princeton Review isn't even affiliated with Princeton University, which is a bit of a bummer because I naturally assumed that it was.

AND... The Princeton Review even has rankings based upon things like acceptance of Marijuana usage, amount of parties attended, best college for beer drinking. Not the sort of thing that endears me to their statistical analysis.

Capitals added for emphasis...my tone is not stern.

Ok, now I believe you have misunderstood ME...I never said God didn't know the future, God is not bounded by time...that has nothing to do with the success or failure of the City of Faith. Many good churches with pastors who are called of God (of EVERY denomonation...not only Charismatic) have closed their doors...lack of MONEY, lack of PEOPLE...I have seen it first hand. Now, would you say that EVERY church that has closed its doors due to these elements was not called of God and was out of God's plan...NO. Same thing with individual people, when they end up leaving the church, this does not mean God did not have a plan for thier lives, circumstances and the gift of free will lead to that. Now, I know some people believe that they were never saved in the first place, but that is another issue that I will not discuss here. The issue here is NOT the sovereignty of God (which He the is TOTALLY omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient...LORD of all! I believe this with my whole heart). That is a red herring. The issue is the free will of man and the fallen state of God's creation. It was God's sovereign plan for a medical center to be built that not only treats the physical and mental ills of people, but the spiritual ills as well. Why would this NOT be in God's plan? However, it failed due to the same reasons good churches of all denomonations fail...lack of MONEY, lack of PEOPLE. I see a terrible double-standard being held by the critics of Charismatic Christians and ministries. They attack the ministers for trying to raise money for their projects, and then when their projects fail, they attack them for "being a false prophet". Instead of spending their time trying to discount "heretics", these people should stop majoring in minors and focus on the Great Commission. THIS is what matters, let God deal with heretics! All our job is is to preach the Gospel and serve God. Like the Westminster Catechism says..."What is the chief end of man? To glorify God and enjoy Him forever." I have been in both Conservative and Charismatic churches, and still continue to have exposure to both, and I do not see any major difference in their theology. The major difference I see is that Conservative churches do not believe the gifts of the Spirit are for today and they believe that God doesn't heal everybody. If you look at any of the major Charismatic organizations' doctrinal statements, the first points are always the sovereignty of God, the Trinity, the fall and redemtion of man, the deity of Christ, the infallability of Scripture, etc. Here are a few examples of some Charismatic doctrinal statements:

• Benny Hinn Ministries
• RHEMA
• Kenneth Copeland Ministries
• Joyce Meyer Ministries

So, I want to end by saying...let's keep the MAIN thing the MAIN thing and work TOGETHER to reach the lost! Also, I want to say it is OK to talk about making sure the "scandals" are presented in the article...but what about mentioning all the good things about him too? Yes, there are many! I present this repsectfully.

P.S.: I apologize for the hunting you had to do with that link. ORU's page says it is listed by the Princeton Review as one of the best schools in the West and if you go to this link you will see them listed (they have broken up the list by state). ORU's news release ALSO says that they were rated in the top 50 schools in the Masters-West category. They still have been recognized by these organizations (The Princeton Review is a well-respected academic services organization...they have college test-prep and college stats...I don't think they should rate "beer drinking" or "marajuana use", etc. either...I graduated from a CONSERVATIVE Christian High School that used them for test prep.). ORU has a right to notify people about the fact that they were given good ratings.

Again thanks for your detailed response - I am quite enjoying the chance to have dialogue with you. You don't need to apologise for me hunting around for ORU stuff - that was a choice that I made and I did so mainly because I was surprised that ORU was seen to be reasonably good.

I've actually written quite a lot of articles about Charismatic themes. If you click on my username One Salient Oversight and scroll down the page you will see all the articles that I have written or edited or contributed to.

Unfortunately I am actually writing from a moderate anti-Charismatic perspective. (If I was a radical anti-Caro I'd be condemning you all to hell!) This means that I have inserted comments and external links that seek to place individuals or teachings under scrutiny. I actually want all people who view these articles to be able to access the good and bad points for themselves and be presented with arguments for and/or against.

My magnum opus is Criticisms of Charismatic and Pentecostal belief. About 90% of that article is my work. Fortunately a Vineyard pastor began to edit the article so that certain points raised were given an alternative viewpoint. Have a read through the article - it is quite detailed - and you will pretty much discover the problems that I have with the modern Charismatic movement.

But I do admit that I am sinful, and I ask you to keep me accountable if you read anything that I have written that you know is plain wrong. Please dialogue with me over these articles to make sure that I only ever write the truth, and that I write in a way that is neutral and as unbiased as possible. For example, I use The Apologetics Index as an external link for many of my criticisms. While this site is critical of much in the modern Charismatic and Pentecostal scene, the author is himself a Charismatic. Therefore I am more inclined to trust his articles, which contain many links and references to explore. I don't know much about Cephas but I do know that there are some pretty wacky anti-Caro sites out there that I should not use as backup - so keep me accountable about this.

It would be great if you could get your own userpage and have info on yourself on it. It really helps people to respect and understand where you're coming from. The more work a person does on Wikipedia, the more people learn to respect you.

Finally, if you want a good laugh, go to Wikipedia:Unusual articles.

PS Did you know that Ted Haggard and C. Peter Wagner teach Open Theism?

--One Salient Oversight 02:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By the way I checked Benny Hinn Ministries for the statement of faith. I think I disagree with about half of it - and I don't think Hinn is a believer. Sorry, but when you compare Hinn's teachings with that of scripture, I honestly can't see how someone who believes in 9 persons in the godhead can call themselves a Christian. One Salient Oversight 05:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for my delay in writing...I have been extremely busy these past few days. I will be happy to look through your articles to make sure your information is valid. I will research what you told me about Ted Haggard (I am not familiar with C. Peter Wagner). I'll let you know what I find. Also, I can tell you as a fact that Benny Hinn does not believe there are 9 persons in the godhead. I don't know where you saw that, but that is not valid...for example, here is the excerpt from the statement of faith on his website:

We believe the one true God has revealed Himself as the eternally self-existent, self-revealed "I AM" and has further revealed Himself as embodying the principles of relationship and association, i.e., Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Deuteronomy 6:4; Mark 12:29; Isaiah 43:10, 11; Matthew 28:19).

I am certain he is a believer...if you have ever attended one of his crusades, you know that he gives a Biblical Gospel message, the delivery is quite similar to that of other great Conservative evangelists. If you want to see the Gospel message given on Benny Hinn's website, click here. I look forward to your response.

P.S.: Thanks for the "unusual article" link! There were some strange things on that!

I'm happy to keep talking about this subject. Please go to my talk page to continue as it is probably best not to clutter up this article's talk page. One Salient Oversight 02:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Witness

Moved an anon.'s witness from article. The scripture references may have some use to this article's group of editors.

Oral Roberts' cheer that "Something Good is going to happen to you." comes from Nahum 1:7 and several verses in Psalms that reveal that "The Lord is good." 3 John 2, "Beloved, I wish above all things that you would prosper and be in health even as your soul prospers." The revelation of 3 John 2 shows that The Lord is concerned about the well-being of His creation. In Genesis, "As long as the earth remains, there shall be seedtime and harvest." "Touch not mine anointed," means that we should pray and receive God's Word and confirm it in The Holy Bible, and that we should not criticize God's prophets. "The Lord bless you and keep you." "Prepare The Way" for the soon return of The Lord Jesus who is The Only Way to The Father (Our Creator) in Heaven. Thank The Lord for sending His Holy Spirit to live in those who believe.

WBardwin 10:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I marked this article for possible POV problems. The changes made today by 70.244.230.204 provide an overly-positive view of Oral Roberts, with sentences like "This was the largest health facility of its kind in the world, and sought to merged together the healing streams of prayer and medicine as God had revealed it to Oral Roberts." This is language straight from the ministry. We don't know if God revealed it to Oral or not. At the same time, the previous version of the article was a brief biography followed by a list of criticisms. I think we need something in between the two approaches. --Beirne 16:10, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I find it interesting that this entry was flagged over neutrality concerns when I edited it for just that reason. I believe it had been overly critical and too wide ranging in it’s content. For instance, I see on this page discussion about the cause for the closure of the hospital, but it’s stated goal of integrating physical and spiritual treatment has spread. I can't cite, but remember reading articles in magazines like “Reader’s Digest” and “People” about the results of prayer in medical treatment. (Shouldn’t that be a simple cite to a in a separate article about the hospital itself, and “faith healing”?) Additionally the specific phrase about “failure” was deleted. Who among us can know whether some choice that may seem to end in disappointment actually has a greater public &/or spiritual impact in the end? I also edited the active tense of him claiming he did the raising of dead himself instead of directly accrediting it to God. Which of us can say the death was actual, or what exactly he said? However, over the man’s whole ministry he has attributed his both his motivations and results to God’s power, not his own.

Let me conclude by saying that I made these edits in passing (as a result of a Google search that brought me here) not knowing there was such a “contentious” debate over the issue. I have just now also added to the entry about his Cherokee heritage. I knew he was proud of his native heritage but didn’t know exactly how much there was. I find it interesting that is information about the man’s genealogy was left out, but a description of the size and history of the Citiplex towers was included. BTW, Citiplex is linked but there’s nothing there… ? I’ll also add a user profile so I’m not such a mystery person, someday, maybe soon… I will hold off on edits or adding further articles until I have that profile though. I have made small corrections before. 04:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article was too critical before you edited it. I had noticed it but never quite figured out how to edit it to fix it. You fixed the problem with the article being overly critical but made it too positive in the process. When I said that the language was straight from the ministry I was just using my familiarity with the ministry as a guideline. I later found almost the exact wording in Oral's biography at the ministry page. I don't have a problem with other information that was taken from the article like the information on his books, but saying that God revealed something to Oral Roberts is impossible to verify.

Regarding the COF causing the spread of prayer in healing references would be helpful. They should tell of how the spread was based on the COF and not just the benefits of prayer in the healing process. Maybe the articles you mentioned do but it is unclear here.

As to the Cherokee heritage, people write what they know about and what interests them. I knew about it but never saw wasn't sure how significant being 1/8 Cherokee is. It is certainly fine to add the fact as you did, though. The dangling Citiplex link is normal in Wikipedia. It takes one to the editing page so that they can create the article themselves.

I am going to make one more edit and then the page will be neutral enough for me. I'll leave the advisory there a bit more until there is more discussion or enough time passes with none at all. I'm going to restore the wording saying that he claimed he saw a 900-foot Jesus rather than stating it as a fact. We don't know whether that really happened or not.--Beirne 11:14, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick tidbit on the Roberts' Native American heritage. Being 1/8 Cherokee in Oklahoma is not unusual, yet and it is culturally significant, as CNO (Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma) has almost 200,000 members, the vast majority of whom reside in Oklahoma and the surrounding states. Futhermore, there is no "limit" as to what amount a person needs to be a member of the Cherokee Nation, rather descendancy from census-like Rolls. It seems that Oral Roberts is quite proud of his Indian ancestry, and in 1963 was nominated "Indian of the year" by the American Indian Exposition. --Tuttobene 01:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calling him home

I think the article should include the 1987 incident in which Oral Roberts said that God would "call him home" unless a certain sum was raised. This is surely one of the most memorable and referenced events in the history of the Oral Roberts ministry.

I'd say it warrants a separate article. It was unheard of for a well-known preacher to claim that God is a terrorist, and that he was being held for ransom. If Roberts ever had any credibility at all, he blew it to pieces with that little stunt.

It is surely more memorable and distinctive than the 2004 "wake-up call".

Any knowledgable volunteers? Or suggestions for references? Phiwum 18:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The recent edits to this article have turned it from an account of Mr Roberts into an attempt to preach to the majority of our readers who are not christians. Therefore I have tagged the article as not having a neutral point of view any more.

This tag can be lifted, but that should only be done when the text no longer reads like an advertisement for Mr Roberts and his businesses and instead starts to look like an entry in an encyclopedia.

If anyone editing here has any questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page and I'll be happy to help out. Thanks. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The edits refered to were copied wholesale from the Oral Roberts homepage and have been removed. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I withdraw the NPOV objection on that basis. Much thanks for lokking into this! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup?

I see the article has been marked for cleanup. Could someone elaborate on what needs to be cleaned up? It's not a great article but a little direction would help. The reasons should be listed on the Wikipedia:Cleanup page and here on the talk page. --Beirne 11:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

No clue, I'm removing the tag. fataltourist 22:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the nickname "Oral"?

Unless I missed it, the article does not answer the question of who he received the much joked-about nickname "Oral"? It seems like an obvious point this article should cover. Peter G Werner 18:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It is his real name, surely? David L Rattigan 07:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

His first name at birth was Granville, according to the article. "Oral" is a nickname he picked up later, and later seemingly adopted as his legal name. Anyway, the story of how he picked up that name is certainly called for in this article. Peter G Werner 16:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree--the idea of using the word "oral" as a first name is absurd to me.--Dr.michael.benjamin 02:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is AlterNet a reliable source?

A recent edit suggests that Ronald Robert committed suicide because he was a homosexual. The citation is alternet.org. It is not at all obvious to me that this is a reliable source and I tend to think that this gossip and speculation should be removed. Comments? Phiwum 01:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)