Talk:Rick Joyner

Untitled

November 2006 - Rick Joyner was in my home in 1972 and from that day to this I know of no stain against his name. If people do not agree, that is a valid opinion, but it is only opinion. Truth must be based on something more substantial. If Rick's teaching or behavior does not suit - go to church elsewhere - it is that simple.

Furthermore, one man's cult is another man's established religion. In China if you practice Christianity outside of State-imposed guidelines, you can be jailed, tortured, or worse. There is some good advice in the Bible on this topic. Gamaliel, a well-known Jewish teacher said that if someone was up-and-up, he (or she) would endure, and if not, they would quickly evaporate from the scene. Always give truth time to validate itself one way or the other. By Headguerilla.

Rick Joyner's church has yet again changed its name, this time to "Every Nation". I would suggest we need to make more of a comment about the cult accusations surrounding this 'movement'. --144.138.162.221 03:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article should be unbiased, but I agree a mention of the cult accusations could be acceptable in this case. Does anyone know about this enough to add something to the article? Malachi456 03:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think User:144.138.162.221 might be confused. The Every Nation website [1] has no mention of Rick Joyner as its founder. There is a comment on this by another wikipedia user (see below). --Nathaniel 05:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Rick Joyner did not change the name of his church. Another group located in Nashville called Morning Star changed its name to Every Nation so it would not be confused with Morningstar under Joyner.

Yes, Rick Joyner's ministry is still called Morningstar - this is his website [2] Malachi456 02:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the reference to the "cult group" founded by Rick Joyner in the 1970's would look a little bit less suspicious if a citation were given. Barring that, I think that this might be a warning sign for a neutrality disupte.

i was a member of a church that split because the new pastor only taught out of books by joyner. i don't trust him because he focuses far to much on his own revelation and not enough on the focus of christianity.. the bible. --- focus_on_time

Hi focus ... Actually, the reason Joyner has given for opening his own publishing company was because most mainstream publishing houses would not let him insert as much scripture into his book as he wished to. If you read his books & articles you will see that they are FILLED with scriptural references that back up his revelations and teachings. He also teaches that no revelation can contradict scripture.

I agree. Unless there is any evidence it is quite an allegation to say that a mainstream church leader ran a cultic group. As suggested I have put up a neutrality warning sign

Ah, "neutrality disputed" seems a little tricky, when we are discussing issues involving Christian ministry, where belief systems must come into play. Do we think there can be neutral ground?

There are people who will be pro and anti all Christian ministries, and I think it is acceptable to present these arguments if they are prefaced with "Critics say..." or "Followers claim..." etc, and still have an article with a NPOV. Malachi456 09:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Cite your sources, attribute your statements, and I think you will be ok. Even if a particular Christian disagrees with a particular doctrinal statement (God is X, Joyner is Y), they would be hard pressed to disagree with a bracketed statement (Tom Brokaw says "God is X",Time magazine says, "Joyner is Y"). Citing sources and attributing statements makes controversial statements more neutral. This from me, someone who knows almost nothing about Joyner. MPS 22:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two problems that people have with Rick.

1) He is part of the christian prophetic movement, which by its nature is wonky theology for many christian denominations

The prophetic movement went through some real tough times in the 80s, but (to my knowledge) Rick is one of the key members who has never become embroiled in anything close to scandal.

2) He preaches against "watchman ministries" and christian cult watchers.

Because of this, those two groups say he is against discernment. This is not true, he is very pro-discernment, but he teaches that christians shouldn't be focused on darkness. I could go into more detail, but suffice it to say, the accusation is made by people who feel they are doing a very important job and he attacks it.

To a Protestant, Catholicsm is anti-christ. To a Catholic, Protestants are a corruption of the One True Church. Thats the kind of thing thats going on here, accusations of "cult" have no basis in fact. 70.52.110.58 14:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Chat

Hi! I would like to chat to someone about Rick Joyner. I am currently reading The Vision by Rick Joyner and finding it a blessing, and am open to believing that his prophetic gift is real. If anyone is interested, please email me or reply on my talk page. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin 17:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Issues

I hardly know where to begin. This article violates so many policies and standards it practically needs a re-write, if it even qualifies as being notable. For now, I only have the time to insert the relevant tags.  Jim Reed (Talk)  03:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, he's notable now: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/republicanlinked-religiou_b_4031453.html Kortoso (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Early Ministry /Aviation

In his books Rick mentions his difficult beginnings as a pastor. So much so, that he quit and went back to being a pilot, starting his own business in the presumption that if he ever went back into ministry he would never need to ask for an offering (God, however was not amused). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.209.119.89 (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

contest prod

The guy's notable, the article just needs a deep revert, which I'm about to do, to remove the tons of spam. He got a ton of coverage in real newspapers over the last two years for buying Jim and Tammy's old theme park, tearing stuff down, and suing everyone in sight. Also other coverage from before that. He'd pass an AfD easily I believe, although you'd certainly not know it from this article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've added enough to show it would pass an AfD. There's tons more, but it's getting tedious. Will get back to it later. Now let's just keep our eyes on it, make sure it doesn't go back to promo-spam-world.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, local newspapers don't really demonstrate the kind of notability that would guarantee passage at AfD, but the article does look presentable now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The Charlotte Observer isn't a local newspaper. It's the paper of record for both the Carolinas. You might as well call the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, e.g., a local newspaper. The Winston-Salem Journal is also a major regional paper. We're not talking about local papers, which I intentionally didn't use. Try to make the argument that the Charlotte Observer doesn't demonstrate notability at AfD and see how that goes.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add the following to the image's caption:

{{Pufc|1=Crop.Rick Joyner 2013.jpg|log=2014 February 1}}

Thank you.--Rockfang (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Theology Section

In regards to Dominion Theology, the former author had posted this definition: “the involvement in and eventual takeover of civil government by Christians.”

According to the source that was referenced, Wagner, Dominion Theology means “Christians are expected to infiltrate social structures at all levels, and once there, use their influence to inculcate biblical biblical values throughout their society.” See http://books.google.com/books?id=ZnIWSLhkZtgC&pg=PA161#v=onepage&q&f=false A “takeover of civil government” sounds like a military maneuver. The words infiltrate and influence are the accurate wording used in this article and should reflect on this page. If the former editor can find a source for Dominion Theology referencing Christian’s taking over the government, please cite WP:V.MrsRainbows (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh, but you left out the "infiltrate" part in your edit, and you seem to be ignoring the author's long quote from Peter Wagner about Dominion theology: "Our divine mandate is to do whatever is necessary, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to retake the dominion of God's creation which Adam forfeited to Satan in the Garden of Eden. It is nothing less than seeing God's kingdom coming and His will being done on earth as it is in heaven." The author states that Joyner would express himself similarly. Now, we can't quote the entire statement from the source, and yet we must somehow get across the idea, clearly supported by the source, that dominion theology advocates for Christians to "infiltrate social structures at all levels and, once there, use their influence to inculcate biblical values throughout their society" and that this process is an attempt to "retake the dominion of God's creation." Furthermore the same source goes on to note that followers of dominion theology adopt the "Calvinistic concept of divine sovereignty that was to be exercised over state, society, and church...The de facto establishment of God's dominion was considered imperative." How does that not support the characterisation of dominionism as including "a takeover of civil government"?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

While I understand your idea of finding a contextual meaning, I think could be easy to misunderstand the “whatever means necessary” statement by using the words "take over." But that phrase is followed with, “according to the Holy Spirit.” In order to understand contextually that author's statement as a whole you must understand the context and character of the Holy Spirit. Since it’s not necessary that we understand the Holy Spirit or Christianity as editors, we should mention it in the definition, as not to skew the meaning.

I suggest we try to stick as close to the terms that are mentioned in the text instead of contextually trying to understand them ourselves. As the source states the term, dominion theology, can be used in many different ways and has been “controversial” and “not well-defined” at times. This should lead us to error on the side of caution as this is a living person. WP:BLP

As you mentioned, I did not add the word infiltrate mainly because I was trying to keep the definition short so the reader would have an idea. Perhaps you would be agreeable to this new phrase as a contextual definition:

which advocates “whatever means necessary according to the Holy Spirit” to infiltrate and influence civil government.

I believe this is an accurate, non-biased and truthful contextual phrase according to this particular source. It includes some key words mentioned in several of the descriptions of dominion theology. What do you think? MrsRainbows (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think you're dodging the question of the fact that the source cited says that dominion theologists consider the de facto establishment of God's dominion to be imperative. Also I think that your sentence makes very little sense, and I think that your idea that we should "stick as close to the terms that are mentioned in the text instead of contextually trying to understand them ourselves" is pretty much a failure to understand how Wikipedia is written. The source is very clear in saying that dominion theology includes a takeover of civil government by Christians. Do you actually deny this? Should I add some of the zillion other sources on this subject, like e.g. [3], [4], [5], and so on and on and on?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits of this date

Edit aims were to establish a more standard structure of the article, to make clear where new materials should be added, and then to begin to improve the quality of sourcing of the article. Progress was made on both accounts, though for now, the addition of sections makes clear how absolutely lean the article is with regard to sourced, encyclopedic content. In the editing, I removed a recent mobile edit that added month and day of birth, but did so without a source. This is in part what I mean, when I say the aim is to set the stage for additional encyclopedic edits. Inexperieced editors tend to follow suit, and so I have tried to create patterns of improved citations, so the article does not become a place for text dumping, by mobile or other edits. Finally, in importing information from the Todd Bentley article, the aim was not to introduce any bias or perspective. I have none on the matter. I was simply struck by the length of material mentioning Joyner at that article, and noted that none of it was mentioned here, and so I summarised that much longer material, from the Bentley article, here, importing and checking and correcting those sources. The result is well sourced material added to the article.

If I knew how, I would add a tag to the opening of this article that provides the tools that appear in {{BLP unsourced}}, because what this article needs is attention from a good, general biographer, using new published sources to fill in the background on this notable/newsworthy figure. Finally, see also next new section. Cheers, and bonne chance, joyeux Noël. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 05:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Published works

An earlier edit war from an apparent pair of sock puppet editors associated with the title subject's ministry resulted in a period of editing only by admins, and reversion of all the added information, which was all unsourced, or from non-independet (self-published) sources. One potential loss from this—there are others, as the title subject's colleagues may indeed know better things about them, for instance his DOB and the years that the individual served in the US Navy—was the list of his published works. I reproduce them here—see also here, as a source for checking and addition, slowly to the article, in the section I created earlier to do so. (I will try to add one before I take holiday.)

There Were Two Trees in the Garden (Jan 1, 1986)

The Harvest Trilogy (1989)

The Passover (Dec 1989)

The World Aflame: The Welsh Revival Lessons for Our Times (Sep 1993)

Leadership, Management and the Five Essentials for Success (Jan 1994)

Mobilizing the Army of God (Jan 1996)

Overcoming the Religious Spirit (Combating Spiritual Strongholds Series) (Jun 1996)

Overcoming Witchcraft (Combating Spiritual Strongholds) (Jun 1996)

Three Witnesses (Hall of Faith) (Jan 30, 1997)

The Fire That Could Not Die: The Story of the Azusa Street Revival (Hall of Faith Series) (Jan 30, 1997)

Surpassing Greatness of His Power (Mar 1997)

Courage that Changed the World (Hall of Faith Series) (June 1, 1997)

"Prophetic Vision for the 21st Century: A Spiritual Map to Help You Navigate Into the Future (Oct 25, 1999)

Shadows of Things to Come: A Prophetic Look at God's Unfolding Plan (Apr 10, 2001)

Breaking the Power of Evil: Winning the Battle for the Soul of Man (Oct 1, 2002)

Overcoming Evil in the Last Days (Jan 23, 2003)

Overcoming Confusion (Combating Spiritual Strongholds Series) (Aug 1, 2003)

Overcoming Fear (Combating Spiritual Strongholds Series) (Aug 1, 2003)

Overcoming Racism (Combating Spiritual Strongholds) (Aug 1, 2003)

Overcoming the Accuser (Combating Spiritual Strongholds Series) (Aug 1, 2003)

Courage That Changed the World (Hall of Faith Series) (Aug 2003)

50 Days for a Firm Foundation (50 Day Devotional) (Aug 1, 2003)

A Message to the Glorious Church, Vol. 1: A Verse by Verse Study of Ephesians, Chapters 1-4 (Sep 2003)

A Message to the Glorious Church: A Verse by Verse Study of Ephesians Chapters 5-6 (Volume 2) (Dec 2003)

Delivered from Evil: Preparing for the Age to Come (Aug 2004)

Overcoming the Spirit of Jezebel Audiobook (Sep 1, 2005) by Rick Joyner, Steve Thompson and Francis Frangipane

The Final Quest (Jan 31, 2006)

The Torch and the Sword (Jan 31, 2006)

The Call (Jan 31, 2006)

There Were Two Trees in the Garden (Jan 31, 2006)

The Prophetic Ministry (Jan 31, 2006)

The Journey Begins (Jan 31, 2006)

The Power to Change the World: The Welsh and Azusa Street Revivals (Mar 5, 2006)

The Overcoming Life (Apr 15, 2006)

Epic Battles of the Last Days (May 30, 2006)

The Apostolic Ministry (Jun 1, 2006)

Commissioning (Jan 1, 2007) by Harvest Sound feat. Rick Joyner and Bob Jones

The Harvest (Aug 1, 2007)

When God Walked the Earth (Aug 1, 2007)

Breaking the Power of Evil Expanded Edition with Study Guide (Mar 1, 2008)

Leadership: Power of a Creative Life (Apr 1, 2008)

Visions of the Harvest (Aug 1, 2008)

Taking the Land; Part One (Dec 24, 2008)

Church History; The First Century (Aug 21, 2009)

Unshakable Faith: A 50-Day Journey (Nov 1, 2009)

An Enduring Vision (Apr 1, 2010)

A Prophetic History, Part 1 (Apr 1, 2010)

Overcoming the Spirit of Poverty (Combatting Spiritual Strongholds) (Aug 29, 2010)

Wisdom From Rick Joyner (Sep 1, 2010)

I See A New America (Apr 6, 2011)

Visions of the Harvest, 25th Anniversary Edition (Mar 1, 2012)

The Gospel of Matthew (Jan 1, 2013)

The World On Fire (Jan 2, 2013)

The Book of Acts, The MorningStar Vision Bible (2013)

Paul’s Letter to the Romans, The MorningStar Vision Bible (2013)

Paul’s Letters to the Corinthians, The MorningStar Vision Bible (2013)

The Path (Fire on the Mountain Series) (2013)

There is every reason to suspect this is in largest part an accurate list. (As a published scientist, I know my published work better than any other person—who else really cares as much?) But what must be done, is the publications must be independently verified. Hence, placing them here allows for that process to take place. I urge editors who care about this article, to consider this material, and other material removed in the reversion, here, for other elements, which might, with research, result in sources and further quality additions to the article. Cheers, joyeux Noël. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 06:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Confusing Theology subsection

The subsection 'Confusing Theology in Rick Joyner's Books About His Visions' in the 'Controversy' section claims that these books contain statements that are confusing or mix new age thinking with christian theology. It the provides a list of quotes "to inspire discussion". While the individual quotes in the list are sourced to the locations in Joyner's books, where the list as a whole comes from is not sourced. There is no description of how or why these quotes mix religious doctrines or references to such, rather "it is up to readers to make their own personal opinions about this". The composition of the list and the criticism appears to be original research, and without further explanation of the criticisms or a reference to such criticisms it's not fit for an encyclopedia. JanKanis (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Benjamin Roy marriage

Hi I would like to be the best man at Benjamin Roys upcoming wedding please let me know what Next for me and the plan of my life I am truly grateful to the Lord 2601:19C:5280:1C50:7492:2E97:29CF:B673 (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)