Talk:David Pawson

Untitled

There are comments in the articles which I do not believe are fully accurate. I have made changes which I explain thus:

- It is not true that Pawson is " very strongly Arminian, and thus extremely critical of Calvinism,". I have read nearly all of his books and listened to virtually all of his recordings over the last twenty five years (I purcahsed his entire back catalog) and sometimes visit his former church in my home town of Guildford. On a number of his tapes, he addresses the matter of Arminianism and Calvinism and he takes a middle line, believing that truth is to be found in both of them. He does not hold to one of the streams to the exclusion of the other. He has regularly quoted in his sermons an incident where someone at his church heard him preach over a period of time and eventually came to him asking him whether he was Arminian or Calvinist. Pawson asked him what he himself thought seeing as he had been hearing him preach for a period of time. The reply was that he sometimes thought that Pawson was Calvinist and sometimes thought he was Arminian! To that, Pawson said it was true - he believes in both! I have heard David say on several occasions that he is happy to believe in both even if they might appear contradictory to his (and our) limited human understanding.

- I disagree that he holds to a "Catholic emphasis on the sacrements". That's not quite accurate. On the back cover of the Normal Christian Birth, it actually says "the 'sacremental' on baptism" which is really rather different! What he's arguing is that baptism is a normal part of a Christian conversion experience: he's not asking for a return to Catholic sacrements as a basis for salvation!

- I disagree that his idea of salvation "must incorporate the liberal emphasis on works". Again the actual wording is "the liberal emphasis on repentence". (note it says "repentence", not "works") Again, that's a little different. While he emphasises works, he does so in the sense that James chapter 2 does, not in the way that some liberals might. His point is that repentance is important, just as liberals believe.

- "He contended that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, a distinct experience in which the believer receives the Holy Spirit, was a necessary part of becoming a Christian and becoming saved" This is untrue. His book, The Normal Christian Birth, argues that Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a NORMAL part of the Christian birth, not a "necessary part of becoming a Christian." He himself did not receive his baptism until he was a serving pastor: he had a been a committed Christian for many years. His book, Jesus Baptises in One Holy Spirit also discusses this. While he thinks that Baptism in the Holy Spirit should be a normal experience, he does not argue that it is a requirement for salvation.

- Regarding the Normal Christian Birth and "This book has probably been his most influential." This is debatable soince Unlocking the Bible has been a big seller since its release. Also, When Jesus Returns, The Road to Hell, Once Saved Always Saved? and Jesus Baptises in One Holy Spirit have all been big sellers so I think it should be removed.

- I expanded the bit about Leadership is Male. He has often comlained that "Leadership is male" is his most talked about and least read book and this entry had exemplified the problem. It's not just about leadership being for men but much more about men being cowardly and not taking their responsibilities seriously. I have changed it accordingly.

- "Pawson teaches that leadership is a role given by God only to males, a position he derives from the teachings of the apostles Peter and Paul." Again, not quite true. In his book, Leadership is Male, he looks at the matter from many angles, not just Peter and Paul. For instance, he discusses Old Testament norms (many more kings than Queens, and also the Patriarchs) and also ther New Testament aspects (e.g. that Jesus had 12 male dsiciples).

- His thoughts on the eternal punishment of Hell are not really related to having a literal eschatology. The two are quite different and not especially linked. You can be an amillennialist and still have the same view as Pawson. Likewise, you can be a dispensational premillennialist and believe in annihilationism. I have, however, added in a new section on his eschatology.

>D6032e

I have toned down the opening sentence, which previously read '... viewed by many as Great Britain's greatest Bible teacher since Charles Haddon Spurgeon.' Given the Wiki standard for NPOV, a statement as specific as that should not be made unless it can be shown that many people had in fact said that, or had demonstrably agreed with the statement.

>Rpawson

Tagged

Recently (October 2007) someone has tagged this article, claiming "This article is far too partial and doesn't respect the NPOV guidelines". In fact I toned it down a few months ago. (I should add that DP is my favourite bible teacher.) I am not the main writer of the article in its present form - someone gave it a major upgrade several months ago - but I have made quite a few minor changes to it since. I'll make some more and perhaps the person who added the tag could then comment if he or she still finds it unacceptable, giving examples of where - AG, Stockport, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.241.182 (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Tag has now been removed. I wish to add on the discussion page that one thing I removed was the statement that no personal scandal has ever been associated with David Pawson. This is something that is NPOV under Wikipedia guidelines yet significant for a Christian teacher, so I am reinstating it here - AG, Stockport, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.33.57 (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Naturally many other 'Christians' coming from different backgrounds and environments will not support David Pawson's views but his teachings and preaching is supported by his life example of living out the Biblical Christian life style over 70+ years illustrates the truthful reality of Jesus' gospel message. He not only teaches and preaches the gift of the Jewish/Christian God's righteousness but has constantly sort to live it by 'grace' without compromise like many leading Christian leaders are doing. He does not preach or teach to 'the gallery' like so many today and has suffered personally from not conceding to the spirit of the age or establishment politics. As Jesus once said .. "the tree is known by it's fruit" .. and David Pawson's fruit is clearly undisputible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmanjd (talk • contribs) 08:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Books and Tapes

This list reads more like a library catalogue than part of an encyclopaedia entry about their author. I've deleted some entries from the list of books which have been proposed but never published (absence of authentic ISBN is a clue), or which are repeat editions - AG, Stockport, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.80.3 (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced and not neutral in tone

I have tagged the article as unsourced and not written in a neutral tone. It appears that the article is written by uncritical supporters of Pawson. For example, take the opening paragraph:

"J. David Pawson (born 1930) is a prominent contemporary Bible teacher based in Great Britain. He is known for accepting the text as the authoritative word of God while explaining its meaning and context. Because he follows the teaching of Scripture where it clashes with church tradition, he is often controversial, although he is generally respected within the church for his conviction.".

This is entirely unsourced. Who says he "is know for accepting the text as the authoritative word of God". What source says he is "controversial". What source says he is "generally respected within the church"? All of these statements need specific, independent, published sources.

Problems of neutrality arise when the article states that Pawson "is known for accepting the text as the authoritative word of God...". This statement is clearly written in agreement with Pawson's own interpretation of the Bible. It is not suitable for an encyclopedia entry, which should not make implicit judgments about the inherent truth of the Bible, nor about one preacher's particular interpretation of it. If this statement were suitably sourced, it should be re-written along the lines of "Pawson teaches that the Bible is the authoritative word of God..."

Much of the article by rights ought to be deleted under WP:BLP since it is unsourced. I urge interested editors to improve the article and add specific sources to it soon. Thanks, Gwernol 11:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Gwernol: I wrote "Pawson is known for accepting the text as the authoritative word of God" because his stance is well known within the church (which is the main place where he is known), both to Christians who agree with Pawson's theology and those who disagree with it. Pawson says frequently within his own writings, detailed in the article, that this is his position, and one critic (quoted in "Leadership is Male") grumbles about exactly this. Also, Pawson is "controversial" because of the subjects he has tackled. Male (church) leadership, paedobaptism, understanding of hell, Calvinism vs Arminianism ("free will"), eschatology, Islam, Israel are all very well known to be controversial subjects within the church (and several of them beyond it), upon which there is a wide difference in understanding between different theological sectors. Pawson's books on each of these are referred to in the article. And he is respected within the church, even by his opponents, as a debater who takes pains to anchor his arguments to scripture - see the written debate with Buchanan about paedobaptism, and the conversations with other Christians he reports in his Islam book, for instance. So the article can be verified from Pawson's own writings, including his autobiography, all of which are covered in the article itself. I have modified the first paragraph to address your concerns, and I hope you no longer think that "Much of the article... ought to be deleted... since it is unsourced." - AG, Stockport, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be checked for accuracy and given in-line citations; considering Wikipedia's policy that unsourced or poorly sourced biographical information should be deleted immediately, this is the least that could be done to improve the article's quality.

It's not immediately apparent to me why this article has been tagged as not conforming to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, but my experience in dealing with article bias is very limited. It would be helpful to me and to the quality of this article if someone would provide examples of perceived bias within the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TennysonXII (talk • contribs) 06:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I *have* checked it for accuracy (I am not its principal author but have edited it extensively), and a good deal of the info comes from Pawson's published autobiography or his other writings; I detailed these sources in my preceding comment. Please engage with it - AG, Stockport, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Somebody has tagged this article as being an autobiography or extensively edited by someone connected with the subject. The Tagger has not put anything on this Talk page but I am responding. I have edited this page extensively and I have no connection with David Pawson other than liking his Bible teaching and having had brief theological correspondence with him. The article does not read well if you change the subject's name to "I" throughout, so I do not think it is autobiographical in tone. Obviously the article covers much of the same material as David Pawson's published autobiography. I regret the wording of Wikipedia's warning tag, "This article or section is an autobiography, or has been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject". Unless someone declares that act thern it cannot be known, and the tag should read "This article or section reads like an autobiography, or appears to have been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject" - AG, Stockport, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Helpful biography

I am certainly not a David Pawson fan but I remember the book "Leadership is Male" doing the rounds and I wanted to find out if I'd remembered write that he wrote a book about curses and language, which it seems from this article he did not. So even though the article is not written in a neutral tone it has been very useful to me, thank you authors. It is only natural that people who are enthusiastic about the subject should be the ones who hold a large and useful repository of facts on the subject, and if anyone has any other opposing facts they can always add them too. Perhaps I should add that as a feminist I found Pawson and Elizabeth Elliot's teaching bizarre and unhelpful since I believe that women are treated very unfairly in modern society and should be treated as equals with equal rights to leadership roles etc- which is almost too obvious to have to state.- Anna Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.30.230 (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any book by David Pawson about curses and language (and I know his work fairly well); maybe another Christian with the same initials, Derek Prince? Pawson's book "Leadership is Male" argues from the Bible. It is not aimed at non-Christians, although in tapes he has made it clear that he believes the usurpation of male authority (which should be wielded lovingly, not cruelly) will have a bad effect on a society - AG, Stockport, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

---

5 Aug 09. R Pawson writes: I agree that the tone of much of the article is not appropriate for Wikipedia, and accordingly I have made some drastic cuts which I hope will be accepted. The idea is to stick to the facts, rather than any endorsement or evaluation thereon. David Pawson's tapes and books are widely available (and linked from the article) so people can form their own views on it. I hope that this might result in the article no longer being disputed for neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpawson (talk • contribs) 15:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK to me; do you know how to go about getting the non-neutrality tag lifted? (I edit quite a bit on Wikipedia but being a non-conformist have never joined up...) You are presumably a relative of JDP? - AG, Stockport, UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the POV tag because I believe that the text is now much closer to rewuired NPOV standards - any further issues will hopefully be limited to specific statements rather than overall tone. I have also removed the Autobiography tag for similar reasons. (Incidentally, I happen to know that the subject - David Pawson - is not the author of any of the material as he does not use the Internet at all!). In answer to the previous contributor: yes, I am a relative - though just to be clear to anyone else reading, I was not the author of any of the removed material.Rpawson (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

'It is Welcome'

I just removed a sentence 'for readers of blah blah who seek to yadda yadda, it is very welcome.'

Hi kids: this is wikipedia. Not 'Promote Mr. Godbabble Page'

You want to promote Captain Blabs-On-God? Get your own page. --24.245.4.62 (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You want to strut your sarcasm because you think you're clever? Get your own page. Stick to civil discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.49.179 (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Pawson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100329110238/http://www.cc-vw.org/audio/pawsondebate.mp3 to http://www.cc-vw.org/audio/pawsondebate.mp3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)