Talk:John Stott

POV phrasing
Surely "committed his life to Christ" is POV. "Decided to commit his energies to evangelical christianity" might be better. BrendanH 14:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Quite right, I couldn't think how best to phrase it when I wrote it... I'll change it Sparticus 14:52, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The word "priest"
I wonder whether it might be better to describe him as something other than a 'priest'. Although priest is a common term for people of his office in the anglican church, it's one that many evangelicals - including quite probably him - would not be comfortable with. Is there not a more neutral term? Theology John 19:05, 21 Mar 2006 (GMT)


 * Fair point. I've amended to "presbyter". The Wednesday Island 13:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 17:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Confused
Maybe I'm being really stupid, but I'm not quite sure what the author's getting at in the section "early evangelical experience" with the phrase "where the executive committee that ran it considered him too invaluable a person to be asked to commit his time by joining the executive committee." Was he on the committee or not? Did they decide they must have him or that he was too insignificant in an individual to even consider for the committee or that he was too significant to consider wasting his time on a committee? Either way it seems POV to me unless someone can find a quote from a committee member at the time attesting to his invaluability (whichever form that takes). 163.1.64.145 (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. "Invaluable" needs to be defined, and by whom the value was perceived? At first it seemed the phrase was a way of saying "he probably has better things to do with his time" but it might be more clearly written. drdarrow (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

May 2008
An unregistered user made two edits adding unsourced contentious material. I've reverted these as they aren't beneficial to a well-written and referenced article. If the editor reads this, please register so we can talk to you and work together to improve wikipedia. Sidefall (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ministerial controversy
Given the considerable controversy generated by the Nottingham Statement, both in and outside of Anglican circles, I have included a short referenced section under ministry. The later tentative and rather vague references to this under 'controversy' are neither clear nor prominent enough, given its later significance, as Iain Murray's work indicates. It represents a significant, formal and public change of stance from the Thirty-Nine Articles, especially articles XIX, XX, XXII, XXV, XXVIII, XXX, and XXXI. Cpsoper (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Stott. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/nott.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110917063438/http://www.johnstottmemorial.org/events-updates/ to http://www.johnstottmemorial.org/events-updates/

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) 23:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Stott. 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/20130214053730/http://www.johnstottmemorial.org/remembrance-book/ to http://www.johnstottmemorial.org/remembrance-book/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111118063140/http://www.johnstottmemorial.org/life-passion/biography/ to http://www.johnstottmemorial.org/life-passion/biography/

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) 11:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Conscientious objector registration
Whereabout in that new reference you provided does it indicate that Stott registered as a conscientious objector? I can't seem to find it. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Google says it's there, but I couldn't find it either, so I'll remove it. There are other hits on Google for "registered conscientious objector". More without the quotes. Also, you did not correctly add the dubious tag. You were to create a talk section, and you failed to. Let's use and . Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, you did not correctly add the dubious tag. You were to create a talk section, and you failed to. The template documentation actually refers to it as a 'suggestion' so, with respect, the lack of a section on the talk page does not make the tag's addition 'incorrect'. I'm not sure where this aggressive tone is coming from.
 * But onto the matter at hand. Looking at more exhaustive sources on Stott's life, I don't know that that claim is substantiated., discusses that period of Stott's life. From my reading of it, while Stott considered registration as a conscientious objector when he was not yet certain he would seek ordination, eventually he claimed to the Bishop of Coventry that he had his parents' acceptance in becoming an ordinand and, as such, the bishop accepted him and Stott was exempted from religious service, a status that would apply irrespective of his views on the morality of violence or war (: "The result was that, since he was training for ordination, the British government gave John exemption from military service and he never needed to go before a tribunal as a conscientious objector."). While Stott's father was going to pull financial support, he eventually consented begrudgingly.
 * What do you make of it? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well the template links to the talk page and if there's nowhere to talk... I may just go update the template documentation.
 * Based on your findings, we should remove "registered". His conscientious objector is not at issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The term conscientious objector is a legal one. Are you suggesting the term is synonymous with pacifist? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No. The references state that he was a conscientious objector. The sources also state that he reversed his opinion on whether he should or should not have been. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you distinguish between the terms conscientious objector and pacifist? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Additionally, regarding the other sources (one of which appears to be self-published), it would appear that we are in agreement that the information in them concerning Stott's being a conscientious objector ("having been excused national service as a conscientious objector"; "he signed up as a conscientious objector") is false. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How I distinguish them is immaterial. I don't believe that they are false. I will rely on the sources. If you would like to take the sources to WP:RSN, I won't stand in your way. As it stands, we have sources that call Stott the former. Do you have sources that call Stott the latter? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How I distinguish them is immaterial. It's perfectly material. We are using these terms in Wikipedia's own voice – not merely in a quotation – so it's fair to ask what we mean by a term before we use it, provided it's not self-evident in the source (and given that you understand the term very as having a very different meaning than I do, presumably you would argue that it is not as self-evident as I might have believed). So what do you mean by conscientious objector and how is that different from your understanding of the term pacifist if at all?
 * I don't believe that they are false. Is that to say you are arguing that Stott was "excused national service as a conscientious objector [emphasis added]" and that he "signed up as a conscientious objector [emphasis added]" in spite of the information we have to the contrary?
 * I will rely on the sources. If you would like to take the sources to WP:RSN, I won't stand in your way. The issue is not that The Guardian is an inherently unreliable newspaper. As the guideline WP:NEWSORG provides, "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors". Are you arguing that – and  and other more exhaustive sources – are not to be relied upon?
 * Do you have sources that call Stott the latter? … it's well known that Stott was a pacifist for that period of his life. If you do not want to do a ten-second Google search, I would point you to the three full-length biographies cited in the article that address Stott's life prior to his ordination: (under the heading "The Pacifist"),  (titled "Towards Ordination: 'An Instinctive Pacifist'"), and . He was literally a member of the Anglican Pacifist Fellowship . I trust we're on the same page here? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your approaches seem reasonable. It's too bad your behaviour isn't. No we're not on the same page. If you want to tag the article, feel free. I'm not sure why you don't simply supply the correct sources and the wording that you want since you clearly would rather bait and taunt my actions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * With respect, there is no baiting. And I supplied the "correct sources" in my second comment. (It wasn't in my first comment because I genuinely thought I might have missed the relevant passage in the 432-page document that you have since said that you did not look at before citing.) If "we're not on the same page", let's work toward building a consensus. My proposal would be to remove the incorrect sentence. So where do my "approaches" lead to an incorrect conclusion? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Having not heard back, I will remove the sentence accordingly. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

 Works cited



Hell
Three quotes from the source signifying the commonly held Anglican view of Hell as a place of conscious, unending remorse and punishment, these Homilies being alluded to as of authority by the 39 Articles.
 * 'his justice condemn us unto the everlasting captivity of the devil, and his prison of Hell, remediless for ever without mercy, nor by his mercy deliver us clearly, without justice or payment of a just ransom.'
 * 'the foresaid articles of our faith are true, but also to have a sure trust and confidence in God’s merciful promises, to be saved from everlasting damnation by Christ'
 * 'those that have done evil, shall come unto the resurrection of judgement: very well they know also, that to them that be contentious, and to them that will not be obedient unto the truth, but will obey unrighteousness, shall come indignation, wrath, and affliction, and so forth.'Cpsoper (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Revert war regarding references
In accordance with WP:BRD, I am going to ask that the changes you are wanting to make to the formatting of the references be discussed on the talk page as I don't see any rationale for them. Accordingly, I am going to revert to the status quo in the meantime. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I provided a rationale: I'm flatening them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A rationale for flattening them. And until a consensus is reached, the existing version has been restored. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Most references are flat. if no one comments by the weekend, I will restore the common practice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you will not be restoring anything in the absence of a consensus, in which case the provisions of WP:NOCONSENSUS apply. And I still see no rationale for (1) flattening them and (2) that particular column layout, apart from other stuff existing. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I will. I see no rationale for not having them flattened and that particular layout is unneeded. if no one cares to even discuss it, the change is perfectly acceptable. WP:STICK and all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Checking the history, it was you (using a different IP in the same range) who applied it so I don't see any reason given for the flattening, so I can restore without complaint. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And Kevinalewis made the edit to state the obvious. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Misreading Stott's position on annihilationism
Eternal Punishment is the traditional, confessional position in the Anglican homilies, the Westminster and almost all other Protestant confessions that address the issue, and this has been referenced. This has been reverted, at the least I would expect a decent reference to support the controversial assertion that annihilationism is as 'traditional as the other positions'. Cpsoper (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What you wrote was "", and it's not as the traditional view goes back to about 35 AD. There's an entire article on the topic: Christian views on Hell and there is no single traditional view. In other words, I reverted your over-simplification of the position, not your understanding of it. If you'd like to change the article to state "the traditional Anglican view", as you couched it here, or even "the majority Protestant view", I would have no problems with it, but the opinion as stated is unsupported an unsupportable. And again, he wasn't an annihilationist, he was stating that it was a possibility if you read scripture correctly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I repeat the request that you reference here what is being claimed, namely that Stott's advocacy of annihilationism, however tentative, is representative of mainline Protestant and Evangelical opinion at or before the time, if this is not possible, the edit should revert. Cpsoper (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what is being advocated. Please read what is written. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And again, the phrase you added is not correct either. That is the reason it was removed. You have entirely failed to acknowledge that problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And then you double-down with an opinion piece ignoring the fact that Stott does not espouse annihilationism. Please read what is written before you continue to push your point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And you're getting the titles of the articles you're referencing wrong. How can you do that? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This is the text I had added to the talk page before your latest comments were submitted: You have claimed that Eternal Punishment is 'no more traditional than the other two views' in the title of this edit, the references demonstrate otherwise. Stott's dalliance with Annihilationism is novel and remains controversial. It is perfectly in accordance with the sources cited to indicate this. You dispute this and suggest Annihilationism has been traditional, mainline, Evangelical doctrine - please show your source.

Since editing the page you've also removed an article by J I Packer, on the grounds you dispute his understanding of Stott's position. This seems inadequate grounds, unless RS sources can be cited to prove this. I have also added the JETS critique of Stott by Peterson to illustrate how controversial his position remains. You have also removed this too, for reasons quite unclear.

1. 'You have entirely failed to acknowledge that problem'.Can you clarify what problem precisely you mean by this? Shall we open this up for wider discussion (rfc)?

2. I am asking for you to reference your own assertion which justified removing sourced information, please.

3. Is it not better to correct reference titles rather than just excise them, because as you state, you personally disagree with their authors?

4 I suggest discussion before further edits. Cpsoper (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Shall we take this one point at a time? I did not remove J.I. Packer, I removed "Gavin Ortlund" attempting to use J.I. Packer to make it appear that Stott was in favour of annihilationism, which is not the case. Who is Ortlund? Not a RS.
 * Similarly, who is Robert A. Peterson?
 * Again you've missed the point entirely, just as these two learned gentlemen who are not reliable sources.
 * The problem is that you are arguing that Stott was in favour of annihilationism or was an annihilationist. Neither is the case. He simply stated that annihilationism is a legitimate position to take based on scripture.
 * Andygsp here: Stott most certainly was an annihilationist.  He says so openly.  I have also confirmed with Rico Tice (a close friend of Stott) who confirmed it to me personally since this is a matter on which they happened to disagree.  There is no legitimate complaint to make when someone says Stott was in favour of annihilationism because Stott just was an annihilationist.  He says of the annihilationism view that he holds to it tentatively, and that it should at least be accepted as a legitimate alternative view to eternal torment.  So that settles the matter; he "held" to it, and advocated for it to at least be accepted as a legitimate alternative view.     — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andygsp (talk • contribs) 13:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you would read the article I linked above, Christian views on Hell, you'd see that there is no "traditional view" on hell. I also made it clear that your poorly chosen words. Read what I wrote instead of bouncing around in your hellish echo chamber: "If you'd like to change the article to state 'the traditional Anglican view', as you couched it here, or even 'the majority Protestant view', I would have no problems with it, but the opinion as stated is unsupported an unsupportable."
 * I have opened it up to a wider discussion and have asked the Christianity project to join the discussion. Even if they don't, you're trying to make a point that does not exist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There most certainly is a widely held, traditional confessional position on Hell amongst Evangelicals, as referenced, other traditions are not here in question given Stott's professed stance as Evangelical, it would be easy to add many other authorities. That is precisely why Stott's tentative denials remain highly controversial. The three sources you controvert are published 1/ in JETS and 2/ in a well recognised mainstream website as an opinion piece, RS for widely held evangelical opinion, and 3/ J I Packer should need no introduction. I too will open it up to comment per rfc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpsoper (talk • contribs) 19:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read what has been written. I have never claimed there isn't a well-recognized position among evangelicals, but that's not what you wrote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Q. 1. Are the references that have been removed appropriate to this section? 2. Should they be reinstated? Cpsoper (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Incomplete questions This RfC cannot be discussed because the references have not been provided here. Reinstating the references alone does not add anything to the article without a clear statement that they might support. Perhaps you could discuss before going to RfC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Incomplete questions I agree with this is a poorly presented Rfc, a waste of time for those who come here to help and have trouble finding the material at issue. Please supply the references and what you want to assert from them.  Jzsj (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to give some background, modified the first sentence in the annihilationism section from
 * " Stott proposed as an exegetical possibility, the idea of annihilationism, which is the belief that hell is death and destruction, rather than everlasting conscious torment.
 * by adding the phrase "the traditional view of" to offer the reading, "rather than the traditional view of everlasting conscious torment" (bold mine). I reverted the addition as the phrase is too narrow and imprecise. I stated above that there is no single "traditional view" in Christianity. If it had read "the traditional evangelical view of", it would have been acceptable even without sources, but I don't really see that addition as necessary. Cpsoper made it clear in the talk above that he was speaking of the traditional evangelical view, but doubled-down on the phrase he wrote by adding two references: and . They support the wording "traditional evangelical view", but not his wording of "traditional view". However, I object to the use of those sources because they assume that Stott was arguing as an annihilationist, when he was only arguing that scripture can be read to support annihilationism. So if anything, the RfC could be to add the phrase "the traditional evangelical view of", but leaving the sources out as unreliable, and leaving the sentence as it currently reads does little harm. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The references are supplied above, but for clarity's sake, they are: these two and this one . I await a response from other uninvolved parties. The issue at hand remains precisely the same, was Stott's tentative denial of everlasting punishment heterodox for a professing evangelical? The references are crystal clear on this. There's some angst expressed here, and with it a blurring of the focus, perhaps cooler contributions from others will help. Cpsoper (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Immediately into unfounded bias that I have refuted time and time again. Your claim that Stott made a tentative denial of everlasting punishment is not only unsupported, it's a lie. Please recognize that he stated that there is as an exegetical possibility of the idea of annihilationism. In other words, when reading scripture correctly one can come to the conclusion that annihilationism is valid. The references misread Stott exactly the same way you do so maybe you should read what Stott wrote instead of what other have written about him. The only angst expressed here is from you: that somehow hell isn't read and Jesus can be read to have stated that souls sent there will a) not be there for an eternity and b) that they are being sent there to be punished. I'm changing the section heading to reflect that misreading. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And, for the record I supplied links to the references. No they're not reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Malformed Rfc – I decline to participate in giving my opinion on the topic of this Rfc. I realize there has been some effort to fix up the Rfc statement after the fact, but it's not good enough; as someone summoned by bot to participate, I have to familiarize myself with the situation, the topic, the article, and the question. I expect a crystal clear Rfc question that is neutrally-worded, self-contained, ideally a yes-no question, or with a small number of options. I'm not going to wade through all this, and I suggest you withdraw the Rfc, and resume discussion.  One good topic of discussion I might suggest to you, is the following: "Should we initiate another Rfc, and if so, how should we word the Rfc question?" Best of luck. Mathglot (talk) 06:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)