Talk:E. W. Kenyon

Early Criticisms
The page is poorly written and its claims unverified. It needs attention. --Wordbuilder 21:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree ... who is this hack! -- Banemean 01:32, 08 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That wasn't my point. Hack or not, the article should be better written and sourced. --Wordbuilder 02:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"The only (inarguable) truth seems to be that Kenyon—twice divorced and the overseer of the tragic suicide at Bethel—was no stranger to controversy either in his life or his death." Could anyone explain the reference to "tragic suicide at Bethel"? 65.14.60.2 04:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Faith controversy
I'm moving this section here because it doesn't have any quality citations for discussion what, if anything, should be included in the main article.

There is considerable debate over the amount of influence Kenyon provides for the Word of Faith movement. A number of Word of Faith adherents and critics insist Kenyon's influence is minimal and restricted primarily to his teachings regarding the name of Jesus. On the other hand, a number of critics including D.R. McConnell, Dave Hunt, and Hank Hannegraaff imply that Word of Faith mainstream doctrine is little more than plagiarized Kenyon.

In 1979, Oral Roberts University professor Charles Farah wrote From the Pinnacle of the Temple, a book that took issue with a number of teachings in the Word of Faith movement. He traced Kenyon's roots to metaphysical traditions from Kenyon's time at Emerson. One of Farah's students, Daniel Ray McConnell, wrote his Master's thesis built upon what has been called the Kenyon connection. This thesis was later edited and sold to the public in 1988 as A Different Gospel. McConnell's basic argument was that Kenyon got his doctrine from these non-canonical sources, Kenneth Hagin got his doctrine from Kenyon by plagiarizing it, and thus the entire Word of Faith movement was built on a heretical theology. Christian Research Institute leader Hank Hanegraaff reiterated much of McConnell's thesis in 1993 in Christianity in Crisis.

However, information was also gleaned from other quarters. William DeArteaga, a charismatic based in Atlanta, Georgia, argued that Kenyon did not teach heretical doctrines but did gain some heterodox concepts from Emerson College. This argument was one of many DeArteaga presented in Quenching the Spirit. A Norwegian named Geir Lie then entered the fray with his 1994 Master's thesis that was eventually released as E.W. Kenyon: Evangelical Minister or Cult Founder? Lie argued that Kenyon's doctrine was basically in accordance with Holiness/Higher Life teachings, but he may have been influenced to a certain degree by the emerging metaphysical traditions of his time.

Perhaps the most scholarly argument was advanced in 1997 by Dr. Dale H. Simmons. Simmons was a classmate of McConnell's at ORU in the early 1980s. Simmons' research indicated that Kenyon drew influence from both the Higher Life movement of the late 19th century and the New Thought movement. Simmons' argument was that Kenyon might have been unaware of the degree of similarity between both systems.

In 1998, the first pro-Kenyon book was introduced by a Word of Faith pastor, Joe McIntyre. McIntyre's book, E.W. Kenyon: The True Story, argued that Kenyon was not influenced by the metaphysicians but was orthodox in his doctrinal teachings. McIntyre took no pains to conceal the notion that his book was a "rebuttal" to McConnell's argument. McIntyre currently heads the Kenyon Gospel Publishing Society.

Positive Confession and Faith Controversy
The section entitled "Positive Confession" is very poorly worded and includes disputed claims about the author's theological influences without presenting the counter-argument. I will be removing it unless and until someone wants to rewrite it. I recommend McIntyre's book "E. W. Kenyon: The True Story" as source material for future rewrites on the Word of Faith and Positive Confession controversies. Despite McIntyre's connection with Kenyon's Gospel Publishing Society, the book is very well researched and presents a much more compelling case for the actual source of Kenyon's theology than his critics do (I have read both sides of this debate extensively).

While I cannot contribute my original research on this topic to the article, I would like to share my insight on this talk page. I have read much literature from both the Methodist Holiness Movement and the Faith Cure Movement (interrelated movements of the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries). All of the major components of the Word of Faith Movement (apart from the strong emphasis on financial prosperity) can be seen fully formed in the pre-Kenyon writings of the late nineteenth century. However, from what I can tell, Kenyon was the originator of the modern "spiritual death of Christ" view of substitutionary atonement which is popular in the Word of Faith Movement. Blendenzo (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have restored the section. It is written from a reliable source. If you would like to add that some people, such as McIntyre, disagree with this historical narrative, then you are free to do that. But demanding that we only consider McIntyre's point of view is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. Ltwin (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I apologize, but I think you misunderstood my point. I don't think that McIntyre's view or his book are the only things that should be considered, but rather I pointed out that the article as written is clearly violating the NPOV requirement ("includes disputed claims... without presenting the counter argument"). There is a clear split on this issue, with one side claiming one thing (Kenyon was influenced by New Thought) and the other side claiming another thing (the views Kenyon put forward did not come from New Thought, but were already present and fully formed in popular Christian movements which predated him). The article, as written, presents one point of view as a fact and entirely ignores the other.


 * Again, my recommendation of McIntyre's book was not a "demand" that it be the "only" view considered, but rather a recommendation of good source material for the needed representation of a counter argument. I do not understand how restoring POV content without revision contributes to the overall quality of this article. Blendenzo (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Rather than remove it again, I've rewritten the positive confession section to present a hopefully more balanced view. I trust it will meet with approval. Blendenzo (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on E. W. Kenyon. 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/20110807080932/http://www.kenyons.org/who.php to http://www.kenyons.org/who.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)