Talk:C. Peter Wagner

Severe lack of personal history

It speaks of Wagner's role in missionary work. But not what church tradition he came from, nor his involvement with mainline-Protestant renewalists, of both the charismatic *and* non-charismatic variety, in the 1980s. It was then that he started his many ideas of Christian practice, without the influence of Theonomy that now colors every part of his work and drives much of it. Indeed, there really is hardly anything about him as a person in this article as it currently stands, and that kind of basic info is what people often turn to Wikipedia for.

His ideas need fuller explanation, and leading criticisms should be noted. His main impact is not so much on theology but on church structure and on the beginning of certain practices, like the 'five-fold' offices of the church, spiritual mapping, and his crucial support to the power-prayer movement. Rlongman (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Paradigm not well explained

The phrasing does not make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.137.25.34 (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And if I understand the quoted article correctly, what is written here is not the content of Wagner's teaching but rather a critical and opposing statement by the author of that article. Bad. -- 85.179.115.192 (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The opening sentences of the Paradigm paragraph are just standard evangelical doctrine of total depravity, regeneration and salvation. The final sentence of the paragraph makes no sense and should be deleted or rewritten. 141.154.81.49 (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the whole section. The reference mentioned a premise espoused by Wagner and later referred to it as "Wagner's paradigm". A single reference (which was cut and pasted completely out of contect) doesn't a "formal" paradigm make. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Open Theism

There should be mention of Wagner's open theism in this article. Kristamaranatha (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained article name change

This doesn't make any sense and should probably be reversed. Does anyone refer to the article's subject as "Charles?" Mike Doughney (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Hyper3 (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Except for specific pen-names where the author is most commonly known by their initials (e.g. H. G. Wells), Wikipedia naming convention is to give the full name. It is particularly non-standard to use an initial for a first name where a full middle name is given.--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This individual is most commonly known by "C. Peter Wagner" and in a very few places, "Peter Wagner." Yes, it's non-standard. That's how he's known. I'd suppose 211 hits on Amazon.com might be sufficient to support leaving the name as it was. I don't think anyone's going to be searching for "Charles," and renaming the article to that only causes confusion when people arrive at that page. Mike Doughney (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Requesting that this article be renamed back to what it was, since the individual is most commonly known as "C. Peter Wagner" and AFAIK "Charles" rarely if ever appears in print. Mike Doughney (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Critical assessment

The article had a section with a list of critical assessments of Wagner. I removed it, but include the list here in case anyone wants to use it to include material in the article. Such a list is not very useful when there is no discussion about its content.

• Paul G. Hiebert, "Biblical Perspectives on Spiritual Warfare," in Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), pp. 203–215. ISBN 0-8010-4394-8
• A. Scott Moreau, "Religious Borrowing as a Two-Way Street: An introduction to animistic tendencies in the Euro-North American context," in Christianity and the Religions, Edward Rommen and Harold Netland, eds. (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1995), pp. 166–183. ISBN 0-87808-376-6
• Robert J. Priest, Thomas Campbell and Bradford A. Mullen, "Missiological Syncretism: The New Animistic Paradigm," in Spiritual Power and Missions, Edward Rommen, ed., (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1995), pp. 143–168.
• Chuck Lowe, Territorial Spirits And World Evangelisation? Isbn: 185792399-5,Isbn 13: 9781857923995 Mentor, http://www.christianfocus.com/item/show/793/-

Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

CapitalR, where did the article go?

CapitalR, the article was here[[1]], then you did two edits and it was just a stub[2]. Where did the article go? PPdd (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I performed a history merge on the article, in which I moved past revisions from C Peter Wagner into this article's history. However, there should be no visible effects of the merge, and I don't believe that there were. The current state of the article looks exactly the same to me as from before the merge. Let me know if you still think there's something funny with this article and I'll have a closer look. --CapitalR (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't figure out what happened. When you look at the diffs[3], everything looks normal, but if you check out the links I provided, before merge[[4]], and after merge[5], and the article disappeared. And when I click on the article page, there is just a stub left. And when I click to edit the stub"[6], I get this[7]What am I missing? ???? PPdd (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Association with Sarah Palin

Does anyone have RS for the associations with Sarah Palin and Thomas Muthee? PPdd (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Needs a rewrite from a biographer.

Dr. Wagner had a huge influence on Western Christianity from the mid-late 20th Century. He brought the signs & wonders movement into evangelical Christianity through his teaching at Fuller Seminary. The article now appears to be de-burred from it's former "rant" status, but still highlights such a small portion of his life's work it doesn't begin to cover the territory. --Lance W. Haverkamp (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

"criticized" - somewhere . . . by somebody . . . probably

In the article at present is the phrase, "a widely publicized and criticized evangelical Christian prayer vigil". Since every religion and movement, and I suppose most if not all "Christian prayer vigils" have their critics, both general and particular, this phrase contributes nothing to the article. If the critics faulting C. Peter Wagner, his activities or those of organizations with which he is affiliated, have pertinent qualifications, and if their criticisms are significant and specific, rather than general or malefic, the sources (preferably primary) should be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tethys7 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. I have removed the inappropriate words. StAnselm (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)