Talk:Raymond C. Ortlund Jr.

Raymond C. Ortlund Sr

I've just translated a book, by Raymond C. Ortlund Sr. (1923-July 22, 2007) who was pastor (now deceased) of Lake Avenue Congregational Church, Pasadena California into Spanish, entitled "Let the Church be the Church" with permission of his widow Anne Ortlund. Is this the same pastor profiled?75.23.181.247 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, that would be Raymond C. Ortlund, Sr., the father of Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., Raymond C. Ortlund Sr. and his wife Anne Ortlund, were ministers around the world, primarily to pastors, missionaries, churches and Christian organizations. Ray, Sr. and Anne have wrote numerous books together over their years of ministry including: 'Three Priorities for a Strong Local Church, and Up with Worship.

References

Gavin Ortlund

• Raymond C. Ortlund Jr. son Gavin Ortlund and Grandson of Raymond C. Ortlund, Sr., is also a Pastor and writer. See https://about.me/gavinortlund and https://gavinortlund.com

Notability

There are some questions of notability for this article. I have tried to find sources to assist this article in meeting WP:GNG, but presently, the only thing that gives anything even close to that is the political controversy that some editors are trying to remove. If GNG cannot be met, this article may need to be draftified or PRODed. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You would accept that this piece (cited in the article) would be one of the sources needed to establish GNG, wouldn't you? StAnselm (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, no problems there. Did I add that after this post (I can't recall)? I have done quite a bit of editing and added a number of sources since posting this, so IMO, we OK on GNG at this point (or if someone disagreed, I think it's close and moving that direction). ButlerBlog (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Added another source; I think at this point, I'm satisfied that it either meets GNG as it is, or that it can through additional editing. I do think it needs additional sources, but I'll remove the tag as well since most information in the article is cited with a secondary source. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for your work. StAnselm (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Ministry section

I moved the controversy into "Ministry" for a couple of reasons - first, I'm not a fan of "controversy" sections unless they are something that should stand alone (which this is not). I tend to fall on the side of WP:CRITS. This is two sentences - it doesn't warrant a standalone section, which was undue weight. However, I fall on the side of keeping it in the article simply due to notability of the event. I have moved some other things around and tried to get more sources for this article to prevent it being PRODed. Additional sources are needed, and the "Ministry" section should be expanded to prose if possible (IMO - not a fan of lists - it's more "resume-like" rather than encyclopedic). ButlerBlog (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Theology

@FaithfulAccount: In one of your contested edits, you had placed the following text in the theology section: "His Reformed views of the gospel are shaped by the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church."

Do you have a citable source that can verify this statement succinctly? Ideally, a secondary source, but a primary source could potentially be useable if it were something such as a direct quote. Any useable source will need to fulfill the following: A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source (quoted from our verifiability policy). ButlerBlog (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Good question. I can't think of a way to provide a citable source. The reason is this. In the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America), where I served from 1985 to 2007, ministerial standing is premised in one's subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith. I couldn't have been approved for membership in a Presbytery without that commitment. My verbal declaration before the Presbytery was noted in their minutes, of course, but not online. Same with my Anglican theological commitments now. I joined the ACNA (Anglican Church in North America) in 2021 and was appointed a Canon Theologian at that time. I signed a document for the Bishop, pledging my loyalty to The Thirty-Nine Articles, as I received his appointment to that role. But, as in the PCA, that declaration didn't end up online. Public ministry in these two church bodies has identified my theological location. But I realize that is not easily traceable to an online source. FaithfulAccount (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Both the Westminster Confession of Faith and The Thirty-Nine Articles are Protestant Reformation theological statements. That is why I wrote, "His Reformed view of the gospel . . . ." The word "Reformed" draws a big circle around both that Presbyterian and that Anglican statement of doctrine, but it also excludes Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and some other Protestant belief-systems. I wanted my Reformed convictions stated in a way that would include both the Presbyterian and the Anglican nuances. Both are important to me -- indeed, quite wonderful to me. Thanks. FaithfulAccount (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Oops. "Views," not "view." Sorry! FaithfulAccount (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be a good source for your theological views. (Reposted here, but the original seems to be missing.) StAnselm (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I would concur that is useable. I also think that there is some usefulness to incorporating WCF and 39A adherence as a note. We couldn't use the sentence noted in my post above verbatim, but I think with some wordsmithing there's a way to get the same point across. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@StAnselm: To get to the crux of what is stated in the quotation I noted, I worked in a direct quote from the blog post you found and then added info re WCF and 39A in the following paragraphs. IMO, it's reasonable to use primary sources in each case since the quote is specific attribution and that denominationally one must affirm the confession to be a member, let alone serve as an ordained man. What I don't see is a way to get closer than that and not really a way to specifically state that his "views of the gospel are shaped by" these together since there is no source making that connection. But I'm certainly open to other ideas. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, both. This is progress. Two questions remain:

One, why was the reference to my TGC podcast with Sam Allberry omitted and the link removed? It is the most publicly noticed aspect of my lifelong ministry (TGC reported to Sam and me 700,000+ unique listeners). And it is citable: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/podcasts/youre-not-crazy/ . Here is why I bring it up again. The very heart and soul and center of my ministry is the authority of beauty. And that podcast is all about the relational beauty the gospel creates. In addition, the book that came from the podcast has the same central message: https://www.amazon.com/Youre-Not-Crazy-Churches-Coalition/dp/1433590573/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1G7W1QMY9A3YB&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.DYLSso-Uy3PWplZxfz7_5szjqHAa9qvf9wSaWH70TQ-O9KoKhKay4npFe1y1GnbOjsKC6YuQffxgqwnaYV0H3FUJuBb6hBSnUNj5jFAyI3c.VScepKV1cGl2BkIuDRe1vEwTPOek0UWD3dK4Ka856BA&dib_tag=se&keywords=you%27re+not+crazy+ortlund+allberry&qid=1732387589&s=books&sprefix=you%27re+not+crazy+ortlund+allberry%2Cstripbooks%2C105&sr=1-1 . Notice the comment there on how the book is meant to help those who read it: ". . . what the gospel should do for our churches: reflect Christ’s beauty through a godly, grace-filled culture." Moreover, you will observe that the defining sentence at the top of my Threads account, where I sum up what it's all for, is this: "If we exist for God's glory, then beauty has moral authority." This too is citable: https://www.threads.net/@rayortlund . THE [definite article] central passion of my ministry, which is not hidden but openly and publicly and repeatedly declared, you have stricken from the record. And instead, you give prominence to mere episodic occurrences that "fit in," in their way, around the center, at some distance from the center, but are not themselves anywhere near the center. I protest. And I am citing the knowable warrants for my protest.

Two, standing back and looking at this whole conversation, I have to wonder, What is going on here? My ministry is no big deal. I am not Billy Graham! And for years my little article on Wikipedia sat there, with updates as they became relevant. But a few months ago, for some inscrutable reason, the two of you took it upon yourselves to introduce major changes that distort the reality of my ministry. You keep citing the technical, procedural policies of this website to justify your changes. I have, above, provided citable corrections to your shaping of my narrative. But my second question here steps back and asks "Why does this even matter so much to you?" Your purpose does not come across as a disinterested concern for bare facts. I say that, because my edits, during our back-and-forths, made the article simpler, more chaste and better proportioned. But your confidence as experts on my life seems odd, since we don't even know one another, and your resistance to my input seems telling, since you keep inserting minor issues rather than respecting the knowable, citable first-tier issues that I've been teaching for decades. So, you can see why I can't help but wonder, What the heck is going on here -- really? FaithfulAccount (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the first question, "The practical implications of Ortlund's theological convictions are explained in the TGC podcast" did not have much content: we would need to say what those implications are. But it's generally better to cite a written source rather than a podcast. StAnselm (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

As to the second question, I edit a lot of articles, including many of figures in Reformed Christianity. Looking over the article history, I see I made several edits to the article in 2011 - so I have been around for a while! But in fact, my recent interest was actually triggered by your involvement in the article, which actually started in 2021. Anyway, I do have a great deal of respect for your ministry, which stems largely from the fact that we have many friends in common. StAnselm (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)