Talk:List of renewal theologians

Please be aware that deleting persons from the list of Renewal Theologians is both subjective (who qualifies, only those you know?) and is counterproductive to the design of this article, which "is part of WikiProject Charismatic Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pentecostalism, the Charismatic movement and its relatives and offshoots on Wikipedia." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Renewal_theologian It can't be comprehensive or detailed if we delete from lack of knowledge or prejudice.Nelson505

Actually, I think that we could come up with an objective criteria of who a Renewal theologian is. Those I deleted may have belonged on some list, but not on the same list with those named. It does not take a great deal of checking to determine the identity of a named individual. If you would like to discuss, please discuss on the Renewal theolgians discussion page. Theriddles 03:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think that coming up with an objective criteria of who a Renewal theologian is, is a great idea. First, I think that a Renewal Theologian should have a Masters degree or higher (in order to be considered a theologian). Second, I think that a Renewal Theologian should be actively involved in some public renewal effort. I don't think popularity should be a requirement, it is too subjective. I am open to discussing objective criteria to determine who qualifies. But its not like we are overflowing in candidates. I would prefer to be inclusive rather than exclude any adequate candidate. Would enjoy your feedback. Nelson505 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelson505 (talk • contribs) 21:45, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to dialog about it. We should think about about the article. Yes, the initial list here is good, but it's also somewhat arbitrary. There are now several hundred Pentecostal scholars. All of whom could loosely be termed "Renewal Theologians" In addition, there are many many charismatic Bible teachers. So the question is how does someone make this list, and should there in fact be two different lists. Or should the Bible teachers really go in the article pertaining to their sphere of influence. It's really a tough call, which is probably why not a lot has happened with this article. Maybe the trick should be that we require an annotation. In other words, each theologian needs a sentence explaining their significance. Theologian is also a bad term. Maybe we can rename to pentecostal scholars. This would be a more technically accurate term for the apparent original purpose of the article. What do you think? Theriddles 04:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate the dialog. I think you are absolutely right. I think Bible teachers should be eliminated. It would clear up a lot of confusion. Anybody who teaches could be considered a Bible teacher. Maybe that need to be an article all its own. I am not sure scholar is much better than theologian. Maybe we could require them to be published authors on a theological topic or something. Just an idea. Maybe "published scholars with post graduate degrees" might be the way to go. Nelson505 --Nelson505 02:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think we should move the discussion over to the discussion page for the article, so that when we make the changes, everyone else is aware of the reasoning. Theriddles 03:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your recommendation to remove the charismatic bible teachers. I also agree that David Pawson probably belongs on the list of theologians. I think this Jay N. Forrest link is actually a personal advertisement however, what do you think? Theriddles 03:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Although this guy is not well known, he has a post graduate degree and he is involved in the Charismatic movement. And it appears from the website that he is an author as well on "Biblical Systematic Theology." In my opinion he meets the criteria.Nelson505 10:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I went ahead and removed the Bible teachers. I still think that Jay N. Forrest is just using this page as an advertisement (if you read the page it links to, it's clearly done by his ministry). None of these are major publications, ets, but I'm ok to defer on that for now. Thanks 71.162.112.231 23:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Move article

This article has no sources, which isn't good. Aside from that, it should either be called Renewal theologian (which has now been done, moved from Renewal theologians per WP:PLURAL) or List of renewal theologians. Is there any intent for this article to be anything other than a list of individuals??--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 25 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Renewal theologian → List of renewal theologians – The page is practically a list and there is no trend to change it Pestalozzi90 (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 19:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CONCISE. I see no benefit to this change. There's no other article that would better use the current title, so the current title would just redirect back here anyway. If anyone ever wants to expand this article (there's no deadline), they're best off doing so under this title. If the article then becomes too long, we can split off the list at that time. Station1 (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Christianity has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 19:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisted due to lack of participation (while you're here, maybe consider expanding the article :) ) ASUKITE 19:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per Asukite. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.