Talk:Jack Graham (pastor)

Theological Views

From a Christian perspective, I'm tempted to leave the theological views of Baptist on this page. But from an encyclopedic view, I'm not too sure they are excessive. Maybe we could change it to a few sentences about his theological views? One sentence saying that he agrees with the Baptist General Message (and then link to them), and other sentences stating his particular beliefs outside of these? Agreements? Objections?

Number of Seats

According to the architectural plan, the number of seats is 7,174 including choir (about 7,000). Although, the number of seats in the choir can change. The pews are estimated using 18" per person. However, 21" per person is closer to real life spacing. Also, the actual construction is not always exact to the construction documents. (I could go to the "source" and count them myself since I work here, but I want to make sure no one thinks this would be a conflict of interest (just kidding!)) PaulShanks ^talk 20:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I know the number 7,500 is cited and exists on the jackgraham.org page. I don't mind if the number is off by 500, but the cited source is a "minister's" number. Like I said above, the exact amount depends on several factors. At 21" per person, it comes to only 6,149. The official number (from HH Architects / JPJ Architects / Acoustic Dimensions) is 7,000. http://www.acousticdimensions.com/projects/worship/prestonwood.htm PaulShanks ^talk 23:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comparison to Articles about other Ministers

An idea: maybe we can compare Jack Graham's article to several other ministers' wiki articles, (including R. Albert Mohler, Jr. and Adrian Rogers).

I haven't seen any mention of the types of houses they live in. How do we know what is common among world class communicators? Besides that, I would argue that investing in real estate is not frivolous spending. It is used on a daily basis, will last for many decades, and the money invested will likely grow in value until the property is sold. If Jack Graham were irresponsible with his money, that would be a different story. However, he does teach biblically based principals about money management.

Also, some of his income may come from sources other than the church. Why would it be a negative if he is successful as an author and/or speaker? If Jack Graham was cutting ministries to raise his salary that would be a different story. Otherwise, I think his money is his business.

Concerning Calvinism, Adrian's page simply says "Rogers opposed Reformed theology and Calvinism." Why is that not controversial? If every time someone disagreed with Dr. Graham was a controversy, that would probably be every time he spoke. However, nothing he said violated the message of salvation, or even Prestonwood's beliefs as a church. PaulShanks ^talk 05:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's good to look at other Wiki pages for reference, but just because other Wiki pages do not have information, does not mean this one should not. If I had information about the other minister's lifestyle I would update their sites as well. Jack's house may very well be a good investment (however, his home value did decrease this last year), but the general public does see a nearly 1 Million dollar home as an indicator of Dr. Graham's lifestyle as a minister. Again, personally, I do not have a problem with Dr. Graham having a very expensive home, but others do, and therefore it is relevant information.

Dr. Graham's remarks on Calvinism were placed in a category called "Controversy," because his remarks were very controversial, as can be seen by the pages and pages of blogs in a Google search, that bloged on it. Additionally, well known theologians like Dr. James White have made Dr. Graham's remarks part of their blog and podcast. Dr. Graham's remarks were not simply revealing of his Arminianist views, but relayed a animosity towards Calvinism and Calvinist. I am personally aware of several members of Prestonwood who left the church because of his views, and I have personal knowledge of Calvinist on his staff who are afraid to let their Calvinist views be known, lest they lose their job.

Finally, Paul, I would ask that you review the Wiki guidelines for conflict of interest, and ask yourself why it's so important to you that these views are hidden? Is Dr. Graham ashamed of his comments? Are you ashamed of Dr. Graham's comments? This is why the Wiki guidelines suggest that people with close ties to the subject remove themselves from the subject, or at least tread very lightly. I'm placing the wiki warning here, so that others may see and understand it, and on your talk page. Doublet89

Good points. If you will notice in the history, though, most of my contributions have been to the talk page, and many of the changes to the article itself were to remove information not in line with wiki policy, such as placing the value of the home. Also, I have not responded in frustration or resorted to accusations. I am only a volunteer editor, and I can only offer my help, not force it. The Jack Graham (pastor) page does not belong to me, neither does it belong to anyone else. It is a collaboration. I have removed some opinion, and some inappropriate information. If you will notice I did not remove the calvinism section or the "upscaled" phrase, because it was being discussed and/or brought to consensus. PaulShanks ^talk 19:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Information about conflict of interest

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with; (discussing is not editing PaulShanks ^talk)
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; (we are not in deletion discussions PaulShanks ^talk)
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); (this article is not being used for advertisment purposes or spamming PaulShanks ^talk)

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography. (I have noted wiki policy in my changes PaulShanks ^talk)

I have done my best to help and not to harm, even those I disagree with. I believe this accusation is false - I have nothing to hide. Please look at my actions, not at accusations. PaulShanks ^talk 20:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Neighborhood

The Wiki guidelines don't prohibit giving the neighborhood of a person, but are specific to say that you should not give the ADDRESS of a person. Additionally, Dr. Graham's home address, it's neighborhood, and appraised value are all public information available online. Still, in an effort to be agreeable, I will leave out the name of the neighborhood and just note the type of neighborhood he lives in. doublet89 (talk)

This section may be resolved for now. (Thanks) Paulshanks (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC);

This section was updated by Dirkmavs earlier today with the summary "This is subjective and inappropriate for biography section" Are there any disagreements? PaulShanks ^talk

To remove any subjectivity, I removed the word "upscale" and included the appraised value of his home (public knowledge) and sourced it. talk —Preceding comment was added at 23:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

While the value of the house is not a security issue, the information on the linked-to page is (and have removed it). It is good to reference your fact, but I would rather take your word for it, than introduce security risks. I know the information is publicly available on another site, so is yours and mine. However, since you are so concerned about your own identity (and I am respecting that), please respect the Graham family's privacy. PaulShanks ^talk 03:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was content just calling it an upscale, gated community, but DirkMavs pushed the issue by removing it because it is subjective. Therefor I removed any subjectivity by stating the actual value of the home and, keeping in line with Wiki rules, sourced the information.

(This was in response to the removal of the value of the home PaulShanks ^talk 06:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)) At this point I have no problem with that. If Dirkmavs changes it, you and I can get him up to speed on our discussions. Sorry that this has been so grueling, I don't intend for it to be. PaulShanks ^talk 23:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a response I got from a Wikipedia Administrator: PaulShanks ^talk 06:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Well-known_public_figures says, "Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." Therefore, my take on the situation is that the link should not be added. You'll probably want to mention this to that user and discuss this on the article's talk page. Useight (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the Wiki rules are referring to the content of the pages, not the link to source it. I propose that we source the material, but do not provide the direct link to it. I.e., we'll link to http://www.collincad.org and then the reader would have to use the site to find the record of Dr. Graham's home. If someone really wants to find his address, it's available to the public on that site anyway, we're just not making Wiki an easy tool to look it up. The casual reader will not go to the effort, and the determined reader could find that information anyway. Doublet89

I can see that working. Let's continue to talk about relevance. PaulShanks ^talk 15:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Refering to links with addresses: "links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted." However, the subject (Jack Graham) does not maintain this website. PaulShanks ^talk 15:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see that this is an area we need to discuss further. I liked "upscale" better than the dollar amount. Doublet89 mentioned that it was "relevent since he lives in an upscale, gated neighborhood as a pastor." I can understand not wanting a pastor to waste money that could be used for ministry. However, even average houses can be expensive in this area, and this doesn't take into consideration how much money is used for ministries. Also, many low cost apartments are gated (as is mine). Thoughts? PaulShanks ^talk 01:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't personally have a problem with Dr. Graham having a $XXXk home, but I know others do, and because he's a minister, this is relevant to who he is. The average home in Frisco is around $XXXk, so Jack's home is 4 times that, and I would guess, more than 4 times the average home of someone in his congregation. And yes, many low cost apartments are gated, but low cost home developments are not. There are only a few gated developments in all of Frisco because of the exhorbant cost and living in a neighborhood that's gated certainly is a status symbol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doublet89 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reproduced comments made by DirkMav on my talk page here, and am responding, so that this discussion may be open to others approaching this issue Doublet89 (talk:

You are in clear violoation of the following as i've repeatedly said... "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"."Dirkmavs (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Dirk, you have only claimed that I was in violation of wiki guidelines, and have not, before now, been specific about what you thought this might be in violation of. The definition of encyclopedia is:

a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject (www.dictionary.com) Also - "A work containing information on all subjects is a general encyclopedia. A subject encyclopedia concentrates on all aspects of one subject or field." (www.lib.colostate.edu/howto/gloss.html)

Adding this information about his upscale, gated home does not violate Dr. Graham's privacy, and sourcing something with another public site that has the subjects information is not against Wiki guidelines. Still, to be extra conservative, I attempted to source the information without giving the specific page that list Dr. Graham's address. And remember, even if someone wanted to harass Dr. Graham, it would be difficult, as IT IS A GATED, GUARDED NEIGHBORHOOD. Additionally, it is difficult to describe information that has purposefully been made public by the government, as private.

Dr. Graham is a famous preacher of one of the worlds largest churches and appears on T.V. and radio. He is a public figure. Whether you agree that Dr. Graham's expensive home is fitting or not, the public, and much of Christianity HAS deemed it a public issue, and a simple Google search on this subject will reveal this. This information is NOT a claim, but a fact.

Finally, this information DOES NO HARM. A minister who is in the public eye and buys an expensive home has indeed, himself, made the claim that information about his purchase is not harming him, or he would not have purchased it. Unlike an affair, or a connection with organized crime, buying an expensive home can not be covered up. You must ask yourself "Is the subject ashamed of this information?" "Does the subject deny this information?" I'm sure most people who know Jack Graham would agree that the answer to both question is...NO. However, one must wonder about the ferocity of his employees attempt to keep this information out of Wikipedia. Perhaps they are ashamed of Dr. Graham?

Just a note from Paul Shanks. I do not know that Dirkmavs is a staff member. I deduce that he is at least close to a staff member, from some of his comments. I am a staff member, and am trying to contact Dirkmavs. Please do not hold his actions to the Prestonwood staff. PaulShanks ^talk 00:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I wrote this on the talk page as well but wanted to list it here as well... In a step of good faith I will consent to the appraisal link on the page if you will agree to remove the term "upscale" due to it's subjectively that this phrase implies and as it is phrase I did not agree with in this situation. I was ok with you removing the phrase "powerful preaching style" (although it was sourced from a bio) for the same reason and I really don't see much difference between the two instances. I would actually prefer you remove "gated" as well as this yet to be sourced that the neighborhood is indeed gated and even if it is why does this matter?...any and all types of housing communities cannot be gated but it implies nothing other than maybe increased homeowners association costs.Johnb316 (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Johnb316, the link is only there to support the use of the term "upscale." I'm not sure why you find the term upscale offensive. He DOES live in an upscale neighborhood - I have NO doubt that Jack would agree that his neighborhood is upscale, and the home values support that. What other word(s) would you like to use to convey the fact that he lives in a very expensive home? I certainly CAN cite the gated part, if you like. Please see my previous discussion on the gate to see why gated does matter. The difference between "powerful preaching style" and "upscale" is that "upscale" is a proven, sourced fact. No one can prove weather Dr. Graham's preaching style is "powerful." You can prove that Prestonwood claims his style is "powerful." Johnb316, can ask you to examine your thoughts and ask yourself if you are being objective? I believe you love Dr. Graham, and I pray for him too, but I don't believe you are objectively looking at this material. A rah-rah PR piece on Dr. Graham isn't believable. Let the facts about Dr. Graham stand on their own. He is a very accomplished and very intelligent preacher and I believe his actions and his life can stand on their own - they don't need to be covered up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.218.129.51 (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Doublet,

I wrote this on your talk page as well but wanted all to see the section in the Living Persons Biography guidelines that I believe you are violating with one of your "sources" and I will be removing it tomorrow unless anyone has objections and reads this differently than I do...I would also ask that you please remove all mentions of Dr. Graham's home value that you have made in the various talk pages and discussion pages.

"Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability."Johnb316 (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping it didn't have to come to this but I got an official ruling from a wiki admin who gave the following respose...is everyone ok now leaving the article the way it is constructed now? I'd also like to eventually delete this talk page and it contains personal information. "The sourcing seems questionable. It also seems irrelevant unless some third party reliabel source has commented on where he lives in way that it is relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)"Johnb316 (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

O.k. guys, I give up - although I still hold that the very expensive neighborhood that Dr. Graham lives in IS relevant, I just don't know that it matters enough for me to continue this battle. There are other more important things I'll spend my time on - like getting Dr. Graham's anti-Calvinist remarks back on the page (I'm looking for another source, since Prestonwood's PowerPoint minister, Scott Seals, removed it to cover up Graham's remarks). Let me just say, in response to the ONE administrator that Johnb316 quoted, that the relevancy of a page contribution is not solely reliant upon a 3rd party source having spoken about the contribution in particular. There are plenty of reliable 3rd party sources that have spoken on ministers who live in big houses and drive fancy cars, and the subject of ministerial finances continues to be a hot topic. PLEASE, IF YOU READ THIS AND AGREE WITH ME, AND HAVE THE PATIENCE AND TIME TO PICK UP THE GAMUT AND FIGHT THE PRESTONWOOD STAFFERS AND JACK GRAHAM CHEERLEADERS, PLEASE DO SO. (NOT THAT ALL OF YOU WHO OPPOSED THIS WERE EITHER OF THE ABOVE)Doublet89 (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I went to the talk page for JoshuaZ, the Admin who Johnb316 quoted, and found out that HE IS NOT AN ADMIN. Johnb316, the next time you quote an admin to add authority to your viewpoint, please be sure he is actually an admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doublet89 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Neighborhood is not relevant and it is odd that this is up for debate as you cannot properly resource this entry with any acceptable source. Doublet89 seems to have some sort personal crusade to slant this page. I also find it odd he claims he is a member of the church and yet is accusing others of having a conflict of interest when he himself does. A member- a positive one or a disgruntled one as doublet89 seems to be would have a conflict of interest.--Cupcakefriend (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, if you're a Jack Graham cheerleader, please don't waste anyone's time in making broad generalizations like "you can not properly resource this entry with any acceptable source" (it was properly sourced, and no one has proven otherwise) and throwing out accusations of a "personal crusade to slant this page." Contrary to your comments, I pray for Dr. Graham and think he is a strong man of God who loves the Lord and has done great things for the Kingdom of God. It is because I am NOT slanting this page, that I have put both positive and what, obviously, some of you think, is negative information here (I don't think his house cost is negative, I do think his mischaracterization of Calvinist is negative), AND, have deleted false and libelous information about Dr. Graham put on this page by vandals. What have YOU contributed to this page?Doublet89 (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Doublet while you may have had contributions to this page, you now seem far too biased to contribute in a meaningful way at this point. The accusations towards others and biased statements are not helping in the editorial neither is your ranting and yelling (all caps usage) on this discussion page. You really need to examine what your motives are for this editorial. I am no ones "cheerleader" as you like to name call on this page. I just think this editorial has gotten out of hand and upon reading all the discussion you seem to be the instigator. Just an observation. --Cupcakefriend (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Calvinism

Some thoughts from Wikipedia: Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Paulshanks (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Calvinistic views are held by much more than a "tiny minority" in the SBC. About 1/2 of the staff at Prestonwood Baptist are Calvinist, and the president of the SBC's largest seminary, Al Mohler, is a devout Calvinist. Additionally, James P. Boyce, founding president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was Calvinist. And, The Baptist Standard (http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=7686) says that a study by the Southern Baptist North American Mission Board and LifeWay Christian Resources showed about 30 percent of recent Southern Baptist seminary graduates identify themselves as Calvinists. Calvinism has a long, long history in the Baptist tradition, and was the majority view until 100 years ago. doublet89 (talk)

Prestonwood is an SBC church, and it should not be considered controversial that Jack Graham's view fall in line with SBC. If SBC's stance on calvinism is controversial then it should not be on this page. Paulshanks (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC);

The SBC does not state a view on Calvinism or Arminianism, and neither view is expressed in the Baptist Faith and Message. doublet89 (talk)

I'm not sure Jack Graham falls under Arminianism. This page says "Salvation can be lost." However, I believe Prestonwood's stance is once saved always saved. Paulshanks (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This is correct, Paul regarding your comment on Arminianisn. Prestonwood's website explains the beliefs of the church and Pastor Graham and among them is the belief that "once saved always saved" http://prestonwood.org/about/beliefs.php Dirkmavs (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)DirkMavs

One does not have to believe in all 5 tenants of Arminianism to be an Arminianist. Jack Graham's views are largely in line with those who would call themselves an Arminianist, and Jack rejects Calvinism.

I can agree with that statement. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a more accurate term. It seems there are a lot of categories. PaulShanks ^talk 00:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps to be more accurate, if we are able to put back in this section, we can state that Dr. Graham is a 4 point Arminianist, and differs with the 5th point of Arminianism that believes people can lose their salvation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doublet89 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been a lot of speculation in this section. Maybe we can just replace it with a statement from Jack Graham or the PBC website that shows his/our position on Calvinism. Paulshanks (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: For the record, Paulshanks is a STAFF MEMBER at Prestonwood Baptist Church and works for Dr. Graham. His views should not be taken as unbiased and he has expressed a desire to remove any "negative" remarks from Dr. Grahams wiki page, whether true or not.

I guess I don't claim to be unbiased, but I'm not sure doublet89 or Dirkmavs is either. It is a colaboration. I am trying to work it out. My involvement on this page is voluntary. I was originally asked to make one edit, but I did make sure I agreed with making that edit before I did. After all my profile is always at stake. PaulShanks ^talk 00:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I did make this statement to Doublet89 "In the mean time, the section seemed to be a negative one, and one that was not well founded. If you believe that there are parts that should remain, let me know and maybe we can come to a neutral point of view." The point was to write it in such a way as to be a neutral point of view, and not sound like an attack. PaulShanks ^talk 01:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Graham has never claimed or even specifically or publicly discussed the points Arminianism. Until he does you have no viable source just your opinions about what you think he believes. While he may disagree with many points of Calvanism especially election, there are many different views on the doctrine of salvation and many lie ion the gray area between the two. --Cupcakefriend (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Cupcakefriend, Dr. Graham HAS specifically and publicly discussed his views and disagreement with the 5 Points of Calvinism (he agrees with 1 of them - eternal security). He DOES agree with Election, which is a belief held by both Calvinist and Arminianist. He made his views crystal clear in his 2005 sermon title "The Truth About Grace." However, you can't see them here, because Prestonwood's media minister removed the sermon from the website after I posted quotes from it here, and then removed the quotes saying they were no longer adequately sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doublet89 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record I would just like to post doublet's recent source of Pastor Graham discussing Calvinism and give the entire quote so other editors can see all the info before deciding if this new section created stays or goes. The portion of the article in question published by The Baptist Standard in 2003 is below and I don't see how this is an attack on Calvinism or really proves anything other than the fact that Dr. Graham is inviting of a variety of believes as long as they don't interfere with his belief in evangelism. It's obvious that the Calvinist question which he answered and the later comment about "elitist doctrine" are not one in the same or he would have mentioned that he does have a problem with Calvinism. Any disagreements on this...

Graham also said he is not concerned about the rise of five-point Calvinist doctrine among SBC seminary professors and students. "I believe we have a healthy balance among various views," he said. "I am confident that our Baptist Faith & Message encompasses both streams on that issue."

But he added he would not want to see Southern Baptists embrace "an elitist doctrine" or to minimize the importance of evangelism, which are common criticisms of five-point Calvinism.Dirkmavs (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Doublet89 is greatly misinformed about Dr. Graham's views on election. There is nothing published that supports Doublets claims and till there is something in writing from a reputable source it should not be included.. Also why is this such a sticking point on this biography? The scope of Dr. Graham's ministry has little to do with his views on Calvinism. It is but one doctrinal point which is unsubstantiated so why keep this fight up? Let us put what is important and factual which is what this article should be about. Let it go. --Cupcakefriend (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Father

Can anyone add verifiable information on the murder of Dr. Graham's father? doublet89 (talk)

Not able to source and not relevant --Cupcakefriend (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, yea, it is relevant. Obviously the murder of Dr. Graham's father was and is a major event in Dr. Graham's life. I'm sure it can be sourced, and that's what I'm asking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doublet89 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Again not verifiable information- --Cupcakefriend (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Cupcakefriend..that's why I asked for any verifiable information. The event did happen, and perhaps Jack already has written on it - I don't know. Please, let's have a civil discussion, and not attack. I'm going through the proper channels (this page) and just asking if anyone does have any verifiable information. If none is found, then of course, we won't add it to this page.Doublet89 (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

doublet I have researched this issue extensively- there is no verifiable sources. that is all I am saying- not everything is an attack on you.--Cupcakefriend (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we all agree on the changes I have just made that incorporates everyone's "sticking points"? I have no problem with information about Calvinism being in this article but I do believe that it needs to be neutral and show both sides of the story. I also do not believe this viewpoint by Pastor Graham is in any way distinctive as much as some people would like which is why I sourced the recent study by Lifeway and Baptist Press stating that 90% of Southern Baptist pastors have the same viewpoint as Pastor Graham on this subject. If editors insist on mentioning the Calvinist subject on here than the least we could do is show a couple of angles. Any disagreements and can this stop now please?Johnb316 (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

History

Also, it would seem relevant to add more information about the church's situation at the time Dr. Graham took the helm - i.e. the infidelity of the former pastor. Or would this be better placed in the wiki on Prestonwood? User:doublet89

The church did not condone the actions of the former pastor, and therefore it is not a reflection on the church, nor on Jack Graham. Paulshanks (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the church condoned the actions of the former pastor is irrelevant to this historical, shaping, and important fact to the church, and to some extent, Pastor Graham's success in overcoming and uplifting a church that had taken such a blow. However, the fact that the church did (not?) condone the actions is certainly a relevant part of the story. doublet89 (talk)

Good point. I believe you are correct in the above statements, and I believe that Jack may even write about the churches history some day. However, I believe he is waiting for the right time in order not to publicly embarrass the family of the former pastor. When the time comes, this may be an article of it's own that could be linked to from the Prestonwood history section. Paulshanks (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

TBN

Also, on the controversy section - can anyone add information on Jack's association with TBN - the Trinity Broadcasting Network? doublet89 (talk)

To my knowledge, TBN has no affiliation. They are a broadcast facility and we do air PowerPoint on Church Channel which may be part of TBN. However, this does not endorse other programming in Church Channel or TBN. Paulshanks (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just wandered because Prestonwood is doing more things with TBN preachers like T.D. Jakes, and I saw Jack on TBN the other night pitching his new book. And finally, I noticed that Jack's new spiked hair style is exactly like TBN's founder. Maybe it's just a coincidence.Doublet89 (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see the thing with T.D Jakes, but it may have been about Global Day of Prayer. The spikey hair is similar to the flat-top his father had (and that Jack had as a child). What does GDOP or his hair have to do with anything? PaulShanks ^talk 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack's spiked hair is hardly a flat top, but I'm not seeking to put anything about his hair in wiki, or reference it as a source (read a little closer Cupcakefriend) I was just explaining one of the items that made me wonder if Jack had a stronger connection with TBN. It's o.k. to ask, isn't it? I mean, I didn't ask if he had a connection with Hitler or the Devil.Doublet89 (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack Graham has no formal relationship with TBN, while programs he is involved in may occasionally air on TBN like Paul mentioned in the example of the GDOP. Doublet89 needs to get a grip- I don't think you can reference someone's haircut as a source. Wow is someone grasping at straws!--Cupcakefriend (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, Cupcakefriend, please read more closely before you accuse me of saying things I haven't.Doublet89 (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Doublet needs to think before he writes then maybe he will get more respect on wiki. Far fetched theories that involve hair hardly make an anyone take you seriously. --Cupcakefriend (talk) 04:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Something seems to be wrong with the references section of this page. The references show up, but wiki doesn't recognize they're there, and when you try and edit them, there's nothing there. Does anybody know how to correct this? doublet89 (talk)

I believe the references are edited in the paragraph. The links below are automatic. Paulshanks (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the references in the paragraph seem fine, don't they? doublet89 (talk)

I changed the formatting. Check them now. Do they look correct? I believe it is ref "bracket" url "space" name "close bracket" "close ref" Paulshanks (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC);

One of the references no longer works so I removed it...the other reference is questionable at best as a blog is not a factual medium and it purely opinion based and therefore not verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirkmavs (talk • contribs) 13:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

YES DIRK, THAT'S BECAUSE PRESTONWOOD'S MEDIA MINISTER, SCOTT SEAL, WAS CONTACTED BY PAULSHANKS AND REMOVED THE LINK IN AN EFFORT TO GET ANY CRITICAL INFORMATION ABOUT DR. GRAHAM OFF OF THIS PAGE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doublet89 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know this that is true. I can certainly check on this. I can also check the reference in the history - it may be the link was not copied correctly. PaulShanks ^talk 00:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link from the page as it was on 2008-02-21 06:16:10 added by doublet89 (talk):

http://resources.christianity.com/details/pbc/19000101/9290F735-33AF-45FC-83A3-2386D0699096.aspx

The section that says "19000101" is supposed to be the date. All of the archives on the PBC website have the date of the message in the link. The link must have been copied incorrectly. The reason it wasn't noticed before was because the links were not formatted correctly so they did not show up at the bottom of the page where they could be clicked until 2008-04-06 08:15:33 when SmackBot fixed the formatting. Dirkmavs noticed the link did not work and removed it. Please be careful of acusations.

Well that's because Prestonwood changed the date to "1900" some time back to BURY it. I found it and then Scott Seal, Prestonwood's media minister, removed it after a call from you, and attempting to find out who I was. Scott admited the removal of the link to me in writing. And, Google's cache of the page PROVES that the link was correct, but removed recently. See for yourself: http://64.233.169.104/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fresources.christianity.com%2Fdetails%2Fpbc%2F19000101%2F9290F735-33AF-45FC-83A3-2386D0699096.aspx

doublet89

That is interesting. The cached page does actually say "Date: 1/1/1900". However, I have had no involvement or even communication with anyone regarding the website. Please don't make assumptions like that. Let's get the facts. Speculation is not good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulshanks (talk • contribs) 16:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So you deny having any communication with Scott Seals, who works in the same department at Prestonwood as you do? If so, you should be scared, very scared, because it would seem he is reading your email, which I understand happens to staff members at Prestonwood (a staff member told me that). Remember, the sermon wasn't always dated "1/1/1900" - it was MOVED THERE. doublet89 —Preceding comment was added at 20:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I cannot verify the correct link because I do not know the date that was intended. PaulShanks ^talk 05:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the remaining link was supporting a section that has been removed. The link that was removed was supporting the quotes from Jack Graham, but is no longer working. Paulshanks (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC);

I just noticed that one of the references is not working. Not sure why. I'll try to check it out later. Paulshanks (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC);

Response to query for my position on this article

A user emailed me asking how I stood on this article. Here is my reply:

"I just want to gain an understanding on your position on the Jack Graham wiki page that you have commented on."

I'm not going to take a stand on the Calvanist/Arminianism issue.

I will say that in general terms, not everything that is verifiable is suitable for an encyclopedia. A good encyclopedia editor knows what to leave on the cutting-room floor, and good editors who disagree know to discuss the issue in the appropriate forum, in this case, the article talk pages.

If this debate continues, I recommend all involved editors jointly ask for an RFC.

I will post a copy of this response, but not your email, on "Talk:Jack Graham (pastor)".

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Good editing is what is key! Not the placing of theories or personal slants. Also i am very disappointed by the "discussion" on this page which has resulted in some contributors accusations, yelling, name calling, and rants. This is not helpful nor insightful. --Cupcakefriend (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Editors on this page and Prestonwood Baptist Church page

Hi I went to this page after reading about Prestonwood Baptist on it's page. I noticed that there are several people who seem to be very disruptive of both pages and seem to have an agenda of not letting any information that they think is negative get on the page whether it is true and cited or not. I don't know if you are staff members of Prestonwood Baptist, but if you are you should be ashamed of yourself, both as Christians and as staff members. I pray that Jack Graham, who I'm sure is an honorable man, will read this and discipline you in the church. Please try and be mature and not be afraid of the truth. The church is not supposed to be like politicians or Satan who covers up and disguises his actions. Oh, and also, I noticed that besides PaulShanks,Doublet89, and Romans9:11 it seems that nobody has any other contributions to anything besides deleting information from these two pages.Floridapeaches (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Floridapeaches is out of line- it isn't about negative or positive info- it is about factual info that is properly cited and supported. That is it. it is fine to post Dr. Graham's theological views as he states them on his own website. Anything else is speculation. There is nothing to cover up, but everything should be properly done and without motive or agenda or trying to push one's own views or agendas which seems to be the case here.--Cupcakefriend (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It [Wikipedia in general] is about factual, verifiable, encyclopedic info, preferably info from non-primary sources if it is available. I'm sure if I dug through his high school yearbook I could find a lot of factual, verifiable, trivial or irrelavant to what made him important enough for Wikipedia info. Note that I am not saying if the disupted content meets these criteria or not, only that there's more to Wikipedia content than just verifiability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Family life

Is his family really germane? Would you see this in a paper encyclopedia? The fact that he is married is important, as are any relatives in the ministry. Other than that, his family is important only to the extent that they had a significant, non-routine impact on his ministry. Unless someone gives me a reason not to, I may tag family-related content as unencyclopedic and/or just remove it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll let this be your call David, as I have no opinion one way or the other on this.Johnb316 (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's very germane, and yes, by all means, I would expect it to be in a paper encyclopedia. Do you think his father being murdered has no impact on his ministry? Come on!Doublet89 (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Johnb316

If Dr. Graham wanted the whole world to know famiy details don't you think it would be easy to find on his bio or a newspaper article on the subject? Maybe some things are just left unsaid out of privacy...just a thoughtJohnb316 (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Graham has made public statements about his father's murder in his sermons. Johnb316 are you part of the church cover up ministry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.218.25.203 (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please quit edit warring

If you find yourself reverting something more than once, or reverting material that has been the subject of edit wars, please stop and consider discussing it here or, if it has already been discussed recently with no consensus, using Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Third opinion, or asking for help on a related WikiProject. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Another email

[This contained private correspondence and I posted it here without realizing the privacy implications. I have removed it.] davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi sr . I am biggest fan of u .I am from pakistan and my name is jamil mukhtar .I am member of seek ministry under pastor Rafique mukhtar .I am impressed for your job you are doing very good and well job.plz pray for me and my family who works in seek ministry . Its work evangelizam and helping students whoes don't pay there school fees . We gives free bible's and zaboor books to the different family .plz recall me and my work in your prayers . If u want to see our work to visit our face book ( seek ministry)pastor Rafique mukhtar thanks alot sr lv u . ( if u help us our ministry so u call us +923460346062 and jamilmukhtar9@gmail.com oky by GOD bless u and your staff Jamil mukhtar (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

editprotect request: template:pp-dispute

Guys: Any objection to me making this request formally, by preceeding it with {{editprotect}}?

Attention any admin: Please change {{pp-dispute|small=yes}} to {{Template:pp-dispute|expiry=01:06, 11 June 2008}} to the top so it's blatantly obvious why the page is protected and when the protection expires. Thanks.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision of Graham's critical remarks on Calvinism

I've attempted to revise the disputed paragraph on Graham's critical remarks on Calvinism to be both accurate, sourced, and non-biased. It accurately points out that Graham is CRITICAL of Calvinism (not that he doesn't beleive it, but that he is CRITICAL of it.) I included Johnb316's desired comment about most SBC pastors not being 5-point Calvinist and added another poll showing the up trend of Calvinist among recent SBC seminary graduates. And, to especially fair, I added the names of two other prominent pastors who also are known to criticize Calvinism. I still contend that only the comment about Graham being critical of Calvinism is needed, but have added this extranious information in an attempt to be cordial to the Arminianist and Jack Graham fans who dislike information that may seem to be negitive.Romans9:11 (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting to the pre-June 30 version - this change has skewed toward WP:NPOV, and gives WP:UNDUE weight for something that is not WP:NOTABLE about Graham. Multiple literature searches for Graham and his criticism of hyper-Calvinism (which it appears his comments address) primarily turns up Reformed blogs, which is hardly notable.--Lyonscc (talk) 06:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it a good thing that my change "skewed toward WP:NPOV" ? Aren't we looking to achieve WP:NPOV? Perhaps you meant to say it skewed AWAY from WP:NPOV. If so, please explain how my change has skewed away from WP:NPOV. I made great strides to MAKE it NPOV, which it seemed clearly not to be. Any undue weight lies in the attempt to make it NPOV. You'll note that this was done extensively in the debate on abortion and the notes in WP:NPOVsuggest doing so. Now, concerning WP:NPOV - first, WP:NPOV does not apply to the content of articles:

From WP:NPOV "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. Relevant content policies include: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons."

Second, the notability of a subject is not limited by the type of media (except in the notability guidelines for articles), or your biased criticism of the fact that the media was "reformed" in nature. The source for Graham's statement is not a blog, but rather, The Baptist Standard, a reputable news organization that found Graham's comments notable enough to place in their article. You'll see from previous discussion notes here, that the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate is a HOT topic in the Southern Baptist Convention right now, and a search in The Baptist Standard will show a plethera of recent articles on the subject.Romans9:11 (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok this issue is once again getting out of control and childish...welcome to the fun by the way Lyonscc. I will continue to repeat what i've said for well over a month now that if editors insist on making Pastor Graham out to be some anti-Calvinist based on an out of context quote 5 years ago about 5-Point (or hyper) Calvinism then I will continue to properly source material that shows Graham being in the vast majority of his field on this subject and will show the quote in full context. I also will not stand for making this page a debate on the subject of Calvinisn and trying to show various stats about it's rise and/or fall in recent days...if you want to do this then go for it on the Calvinism page. So, my recommendation is to completely remove the mention of the quote in question since it is clearly given undue weight at this time and is now being questioned for neutrality (althought neutrality is tough to argue as currently constructed). I will therefore go ahead and remove this quote and will only mentions those views that we know are true of Pastor Graham. If editors insist on bringing this subject back and trying to use it out of context and for some agenda than I will once again fight like heck to make it read properly. Also to clear up something, my interest in editing this page is not for "spin control", "PR purposes" and certainly not b/c I am an Arminianism (I don't even know what this ideology means in fact) but I do have an interest in making sure that Pastor Graham's page contains facts and does not become a feeding ground for some time of agenda on this or any other subject.Johnb316 (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting them back so we can have a CIVIL discussion about it. If you insist, I'll add my own comments back instead, but I'm trying to find consensus and have discussion on this matter, which you don't seem willing to do.Romans9:11 (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, the burden on keeping/removing contentious material is to keep it OFF the page until it is properly vetted and sourced. In this particular case, when I peruse Jack Graham's works, sermons and web searches, it is rather obvious that he is not an anti-Calvin activist. To include his position on Calvinism gives it WP:UNDUE weight, as it is not WP:NOTABLE. Otherwise, we might as well troll through his history of sermons and list everything else he disagrees with, as well, since I'm rather sure he's against Catholicism, Mormonism, Word-Faith theology, and Kabbalah, as well. The burden of proof is on you to prove why his few comments regarding Calvinism make him an anti-Calvin activist, for whom his opposition makes him publicly, encyclopedically notable.--Lyonscc (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Haven't we already had consensus on this page though for awhile now? Correct me if i'm wrong but it appears in looking over the page that my math shows 6 editors against 3 and this would not include the 2-3 admins who agreed with me as well but did not make any changes other than to lock the page due to the warring? I would be happy to look for more consensus if you'd like but I think the recent comments by Lyon on your talk page sum it up pretty well.Johnb316 (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi I'm glad to see the page open again. I don't think we had any any consensus in the past - it was just a bunch of edit warring. I think Romans9:11 is right in trying to work this out on this page. Lyonscc, this is properly sourced/cited material and so WP:BLP wouldn't apply to it. Where does it say that he must be an activist for his stance to be worthy of inclusion? It looks like Graham isn't just saying he doesn't agree with Calvinism but has made comments that are anti-Calvinist/Calvinism. He seems to have some very strong opinions on it, and a LOT of people have talked about it. I think that for some reason the Arminianist don't want anyone to know about Graham's passion against Calvinism/Calvinist.Floridapeaches (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:OC#OPINION

Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions. This includes supporters or critics of an issue, personal preferences (such as liking or disliking green beans), and opinions or allegations about the person by other people (e.g. "alleged criminals"). Please note, however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, the latter of which may be a defining characteristic (see Category:Activists).

While this deals with Categorization, it also speaks to the heart of WP:NOTABILITY and the WP:BLP guidelines on what should be included. Also, just because something is sourced does not mean that it is encyclopedic. Graham has numerous criticisms and praises for different beliefs and movements, but like his comments on Calvin, none have made him notable for them. Simply holding an opinion and stating that opinion doesn't make that opinion a notable one - particularly since it does not deviate from the norm in his denomination.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, that does only apply to Categories, and has NOTHING to do with articles. This regards his THEOLOGY which is a hugely important part of a Pastor's BLP. This is sourced, it's notable, and it's an important part of who Jack Graham is. If Dr. Graham did not believe it was important, he wouldn't have made such a passionate and purposeful mischaracterization of Calvinism. If you'll look at some other pastor's articles you'll find theological distinctives are common place. Can we please have a discussion about the content of the this? Everybody isn't going to agree to leave it out all together.Floridapeaches (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Even though the quote was primarily directed at categorization, it DOES apply to content of articles. Just because someone's a cat lover, doesn't mean that it is something notable, that should be mentioned in an encyclopedic entry. In this particular case, Graham has written numerous books, none of which deal with attacks on Calvinism. In this particular case, his stance on this one theological point (out of thousands of potential points of theology) is in line with 90% of the churches in his denomination - so, it naturally follows that holding this position is not notable or unusual. It's like trying to make a big deal that a Roman Catholic supports the idea of purgatory. Big deal - most of them do. Nothing in the public record suggests that this man is an anti-Calvinist activist, which is the only reason I can conceive that including this int he biography would be notable.

If you're not satisfied with this, we can formally request a third opinion, but I suspect you won't be happy with the result, as the evidence is rather clear on the matter.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Lyonscc, even if it DID apply to content of articles (and if it does, why doesn't it say so? Are you the first person in the history of Wiki to think about this?), it wouldn't apply here. Once again, this is Dr. Graham's THEOLOGICAL views and not just his personal opinion. This isn't Graham saying "I like Redheads" or even "I like to think that Jesus's hair is red", rather it's his theological views, which, in religious terms, define him. To exclude his theological views here would be similar to excluding political views of a politician. And, Graham has viciously attacked Calvinist on more than one occasion, and a search on Google clearly shows that there was a strong response by the religious community. Further, the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate is a very notable topic among Baptist (as evidenced by a search for the subject on www.baptiststandard.org), and a hot topic and debate among Baptist. Unlike Purgatory, the popularity of Calvinism has ebbed and flowed over the history of the Baptist church, and until 100 years ago, Calvinism reigned in Baptist circles. Charles Spurgeon, considered by most Baptist theologians to be the greatest Baptist preacher of all time was a Calvinist. And, while 90% of all Baptist PREACHERS (in one small poll) say they're Arminianist, another poll says that 30% of all Baptist seminary students are Calvinist. And, LET ME MAKE THIS CRYSTAL CLEAR, AGAIN, the distinction is that Graham is publicly CRITICAL of Calvinism, not that he just doesn't believe in it. Most of the preachers in the SBC are not Calvinist but are not publicly critical of it. If you were to Google Billy Graham, a Southern Baptist, and Calvinism, you won't see any mention of Billy Graham criticizing Calvinism, even though B. Graham is an Arminianist in his theology and the most prominent Southern Baptist in the world.Floridapeaches (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for the delayed reply - If you would like, we can officially submit this for a third opinion. I would note, though, that Google only seems to reveal a small, selected list of quotes, which seem to all be aimed at hyper-Calvinism, not "vicious attacks", and the response to these quotes is exclusively in the blogosphere, which is never an appropriate source for Wikipedia. Choosing (or refusing to choose) a systematic theology is not the be-all and end-all of one's theological views, and Graham's theological views (which comprise hundreds, if not thousands, of issues apart from Calvinism/Arminianism debates) are in line with the majority of his denomination. Disagreeing with a systematic theological view that was invented less than 500 years ago isn't notable in and of itself. When I Google Graham and theology, I get nothing about Calvinism, but I do get denunciation of the Health & Wealth gospel (though this doesn't have a mention on his Wiki page) and a good deal of positive support behind traditional readings of Paul. Not a blip on Calvinism, though. If you would like, though, I reiterate, we can submit the question to a third party reviewer.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

3rd Opinions are good - let me give you mine. Lyonscc I really think you're missing the point here. Graham's remarks have been very sharp, pointed attacks against Calvinism and Calvinist. Most of the blogs refer to a 2005 sermon by Graham that was a vicious attack and mischaracterization against Calvinist and Calvinism. You rightly say that Graham is speaking of hyper-Calvinism, but Graham is claiming this theology as that of Calvinist. Everyone knows that Graham knows the difference - he's purposefully mischaracterizing Calvinism. No where in the 2005 sermon or in the quote from the Baptist Standard that's been used on this page does Graham ever refer to hypercalvinism. And, while johnb316 and you are right to say that these remarks make up a very small percentage of Graham's theological remarks, saying they are not notable is akin to saying that Obama's pastor, Dr. Jeremiah Wright's comments on America and white supremacy aren't aren't noble. Or, that Bill Clinton's affairs aren't notable, considering how small of a percentage of his overall sex they make up. Graham's Arminianistic views ARE in line with his congregation, but his critical attacks on Calvinism/Calvinist are NOT in line with the rest of his denomination. The SBC has not attacked Calvinism or Calvinist. And, please, to say that Calvinism was invented less than 500 years ago is either a slap against Calvinist or ignorance of the subject. Calvinist theology is that of the Apostle Paul and Jesus Christ. It it the theology of God the Father in the Old Testament. If you Google Graham and Calvinism you'll find a plethora of response to Graham's remarks. And, while blogs are not an appropriate source for quotes in Wiki, there's nothing to say that they aren't valuable information to support public response.Romans9:11 (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Romans 9-11, your opinion is not a 3rd opinion - there is a pool of independent editors who officially serve in such capacity. Your comparisons to Wright and Clinton are more ad homenim than based on analogous logic. As you note, all of the anti-hyper-Calvinist quotes I can find are from a 2005 sermon on the subject. Criticism of Calvinism is not unique to Graham in the SBC, nor is it all that notable (since less than 6% of Christendom subscribes to this man-made systematic theology). Graham has more anti-Mormon and anti-Health&Wealth comments than anti-Calvinist comments, and those stances are no more notable than his single sermon (and the whining blog-post responses) on the subject. As for Calvinism, itself, it IS about 500 years old, and was cobbled together by Calvin with some St. Augustine tossed in. It is a man-made systematic theology, which is a product of post-printing-press culture (see Neil Postman's and Shane Hipps' writings for further details), and it is named after John Calvin, who lived about 500 years ago and ruled Geneva with an iron fist. The Theology of Paul and Jesus was actually very Jewish in nature (see Brad Young's Jesus the Jewish Theologian and Paul the Jewish Theologian), which is about as far from 16th-century systematic theology as east is from west - I am VERY versed on this particular subject - and it bears absolutely no resemblance to OT theology or any Jewish movement, apart from the Essenes (the only recorded Jewish sect to believe in double-predestination). As you note, all of the response to Graham has been from Calvinist bloggers (who over-represent Christendom in the blogosphere when compared to actual percentages) who love creating tempests in teapots. You give another reason why this isn't notable and shouldn't be included - blogs aren't reliable sources, and a fringe group of layman-theologians complaining from their basements isn't the basis of notability or support for giving undue weight to a coatrack issue. If you would like, I will officially request a third opinion (i.e. the Wiki process, an unbiased opinion)--Lyonscc (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Preach it Lyon! That was quite a response and right on target. I as well would be just fine with 3rd party review but like you've said already, Lyon, I don't think a couple users on here will like what is said.Dirkmavs (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Romans9:11 the Arminianist who by their very theology seek to have God's sovereignty, will likewise seek to exercise that control here. I'm afraid that they have a little too much time on their hands and unless you're willing to spend all your time refuting baseless and ignorant arguments you're barking up a tree. I say let them have their cover up here. Jack Graham is a good pastor and minister besides this point of sin that has also existed in a lot of other great men of God. In fact, this desire to be God exist in all of us I'm afraid - it was the original sin that caused Satan to fall and Eve to eat the apple. Arminians have denied God's sovereignty in the singular most important event in their life and in all creation. And I'm afraid that if they're willing to refute God's salvation in this way, there's no way we'll be able to win this argument. Wiki is a liberal environment. Most of the Sysops are liberal, and the liberal point of view will always be taken here. A quick Google of Jack Graham will uncover his Arminianist leanings - I don't think people will be fooled by Wiki not having this on here.Doublet89 (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow - someone has their tinfoil cap on a bit too tight... Seriously, one need not hold to ANY systematic (man-made) theology to be a "true" Christian, and no 'cover-up' is existent here. To call disavowal of Calvinism a sin is, in and of itself, proclaiming "another gospel". Denying Calvinism is in no way a denial of God's sovereignty, so perhaps you'd best take care of your own idolatry and yank that redwood out of your eye before looking to help others with sawdust in theirs. Ad homenims and accusations of liberalism notwithstanding, Romans9:11 is without a leg to stand on in this particular disagreement.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Preach it Doublet89! You're right on. Arminianism DOES deny God's sovereignty in that it says that man is sovereign in the efficaciousness of Christ death on the Cross. Arminianism teaches that man, in his goodness, suddenly changes his heart without any intervention from God. But, we really shouldn't be debating Calvinism/Arminianism here, Lyonscc - lets save that for the Calvinism or Arminianism page (I think there's even a page on the debate). I just wish you Arminians would be a little more mature and stop trying to rule your opinions in wiki the way you try and rule your salvation according to your goodness. I guess I shouldn't be saying some of this - I'm sorry - It's just that I'm very frustrated. Despite our differences, I do care about you guys on the other side. And I think I'm in agreement with doublet89 (and Romans9:11 as well)- this fight isn't worth the trouble - at least, not for me. Perhaps some Calvinist sysop (do they exist?) will come along and fight the battle later on. Dr. Graham may be embarrassed about his Arminianist rantings and sending his yahoos to keep them off this page. Maybe Dr. Mohler has set him straight? Or am I hoping too much?Floridapeaches (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI - I think I mentioned it earlier, but I am neither Calvinist nor Armenian. Systematic theologies (like both of these, Open Theism, etc.) are primarily fairly new constructs (with the concept of Trinity as the exception, though I'd argue it's not a systematic theology in the classic sense), products of the print revolution, but relatively absent from the historic Christianity of the first centuries of the church. As it is, I suspect that the "big three" systems (Calvinism, Armenianism, and Open Theism) each contain elements of the truth (see here), but as man-made systems, each is incomplete and flawed. As for Armenians denying God's sovereignty, I would disagree with that characterization, as they just believe that God is omnipotent and sovereign enough to grant someone permission to choose options which fit within the bounds of His will.--Lyonscc (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Alleged cover-up of sexual assault

I propose adding information related to Graham's alleged cover-up of sexual assault at Prestonwood Baptist in 1989. The following paragraph was removed twice, once with no explanation and again with the instructions that it be better sourced. After the second time, I added more source material. Nonetheless, it makes more sense to handle this properly rather than to keep adding the content only for it to be removed again.

In May 2022, Guidepost Solutions released an independent report alleging that Dr. Graham, while employed at Prestonwood Baptist, "allowed an accused abuser of young boys to be dismissed quietly in 1989 without reporting the abuse to police. The accused abuser, John Langworthy, later was charged with abusing young boys in Mississippi in 2011."

Yayfrogs (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

References