Talk:Lon Solomon

Non-neutral POV?
Out of curiosity, am I the only person who thinks this article sounds at least a little biased towards Mr. Solomon? Not to say he necessarily doesn't deserve it, but still, given the aim of objectivity of Wikipedia, it seems a little out of place.
 * No I agree, it doesnt read like a wiki article the Spiritual path section seems to be written a bit too "impassioned"

Johnny lunchpail 15:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not an encyclopedia article. This is an advertisement. Not a sermon, just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.115.209 (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
This article sounds suspiciously like it's copied from one Solomon's several web-accessible autobiographies (called, I believe, witnessing, in Evangelicalese.) He did not, in fact, set out on "a relentless search for meaning and purpose." Instead, he became a fundamentalist preacher of fire, brimstone, homophobia, and nonsensical apocalyptic prophesy, a bamboozler swindling people out of their money and threatening them with imaginary damnation. Sure, that's my POV. I wouldn't put it like that in the article. But what is there at the moment won't do either. Somebody has to go and find something neutral to say about this man, or otherwise we should consider not saying anything at all.


 * The reason it sounds like it's copied from his biography is because it is copied from his biography. It's both an NPOV violation and plagiarism (and was marked as such months ago), but the standard reaction to plagiarism complaints around here seems to be to delete them and pretend the issue was never raised. DarthSquidward (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to an interview he gave to Esquire. http://www.esquire.com/features/what-ive-learned/lon-solomon-quotes-0109 He starts out referencing all the right wing political big shots he has in his congregation, including Ken Starr (I've seen him there) and Sen. James Inhofe. In the interview, Solomon refuses to say that he converted from Judaism to Christianity: "I still consider myself a Jew. Convert is a really ugly word in the Jewish vocabulary. I didn't convert. I became the way I was supposed to be." Huh? Why is he so squirrely on this issue?

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/what-ive-learned/lon-solomon-quotes-0109#ixzz0kKzpVtSr

--FrancisDane (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There is someone who is demonstrating outside his church claiming that he earns $750,000 a year. The church refuses to disclose his salary as a matter of privacy. In every church I've been a member of the church budget has been totally open. Here is a link to the MBC's "explanation" for the refusal to disclose his salary.

http://www.mcleanbible.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=103070

--FrancisDane (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to identify the center focus of any church, one of the best ways is to listen to the "stand alone" sermons without any physical distractions. All of the answers to the questions below are there. A person's testimony is their account of how coming into a personal relationship with Christ has changed them. Everyone who knows Christ has a testimony about it. Lon Solomon is, while a pastor, also a person who has his own testimony. There may be some information in writing, but it also is in at least two of the sermons which are available to listen to for free on the McLean Bible website sermon archives. These archives span from the 1980's to present.

Some churches chose not to display "Christian" symbols because the Bible instructs people that the best representation of Christ at work is not a symbol, but the changes in the life of each person that comes into relationship with Christ. That may be the case here. The acrylic stands, are just another type of stand. Some churches choose them because they represent transparency of purpose, removing a symbolic barrier between congregation and the person teaching, others chose them because they like them, just like picking paint for a wall.

In building,some of the biggest structures are the simplest and most cost effective to erect. As with conference centers, the purpose is to have a lot of room for people and activities while being as economical as possible. There is construction grade carpeting, lick and stick stone. All of the mass produced items, while they look professional, are less expensive than the artistic and custom works such as stained glass windows, wooden and marble statues, elaborately carved crosses, chadeliers, etc.

Banks loan money...they expect to be paid back and want a guarantee. A gifted teacher helps to bring people into proximity to Christ so that they can have their own relationship, a relationship that changes and shapes them. The passing of a gifted teacher might or might not effect a congregation as they seek a new pastor or are guided by God's will to other action, so a bank would be expected to look for a legal guarantee to get back any investment. A bank is a business.

People who first learned about Christ at a specific church may indeed express gratitude and appreciation that those that teach there are doing there best to follow God's will and teach true doctrine. People sometimes do experience false teaching either in a church or on television or in a home where people call themselves Christian without actively being engaged with Christ; later they come to understand the true nature of Christ in another church or from other sources, sometimes similar to the ones in which they were first discuraged, hurt, or or otherwise turned away. They are generally grateful for the sound teaching and revel in the healing that occurs through the direct relationship with Christ.

The Bible warns and encourages people to read and study scripture independently so that they aren't purposely or inadvertently mislead by people claiming to know Christ or be doing God's will who actually have a human agenda and people who want to discredit Him also who have a human agenda. Theologically sound pastors recognize that as humans they must humbly check themselves through God, be accountable to others who's purpose it is to be sure that the pastor does not stray from sound Biblical teaching, and that the congregation should be encouraged to get into the Bible themselves. A good teacher encourages this. It is not lip service. They really mean 'to go see for yourself'...and most people, at least in the United States, certainly at McLean have access to Bibles.

It is every parent's responsibility to take care of their own children and as a church body collectively to take care of others when they are in need. The struggles that all families who deal with illness or disabilities should not be taken lightly or dismissively. That someone would choose to honor the life struggles of a loved one by establishing an organization or program that would help not only their own loved one, but also others with the same struggles, is not dishonorable. Collective efforts strengthen the ability to take care of more with less, to give when able and receive when in need. People within congregations choose to contribute where their lives have been touched and where they desire others to experience what they have experienced. Is it possible for someone to misuse their position? Of course, humans do all kinds of things, but nothing can be lost that can't be renewed by God, so people in congregations with sound teaching understand that they can give joyously without fear..and that isn't just monetary...that isn't just within the physical congregation of a specific church location. That too, should not be misunderstood. ...Freely you have received, freely give. ~Matthew 10:8 God Bless You Pacemkeeper (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Megachurches / Bible Churches
There should be some discussion / examination of the degree to which the McLean Bible Church is built around him and the likelihood that his church might implode if he were no longer able to preach there. Is he a minister who serves as the teaching pastor at a church... or is he a pastor who now has a church that serves as his pulpit? Is their evidence to show that he is proud or one who truly strives not to be proud (ie full of himself)? Does he teach in a manner where he continues to include multiple verse citations in his sermons and implore those who listen to study what the Bible has to say about the subjects he teaches (ie "Don't take me at my work on this. I'm a former dope dealer. Go read all of this for yourself") or does he now teach where he is giving his opinion (whether correct or not) to the extent that some of the thousands who listen to him would drink the Kool-Aid if he told them to?

These congregants would definitely gulp the kool-aid. They don't want any challenges. They just want to sit and be entertained. This MBC is almost a charicature of a McChurch. Unlike some other Megachurches in the deep church and a few up here in northern VA, there is no architectural indication that the building is a church. No steeples, no pews, no "church" or stained glass windows. This place could be a conference center. Virtually no religious symbols, either. There's a large plain cross on the right wall of the auditorium which is almost invisible because it is painted almost the same color as the wall. Occasionally a small cross will appear at the upper left corner of the videos. As with other Big Box preachers, Solomon has adopted a plexiglass lectrum. This is definitely the place for the person uncomfortable with reminders Christianity, whether you're a non-Christian or one who was raised Christian but has bad memories of the church. --FrancisDane (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Solomon is so central to the church that when it was seeking a construction loan for its new sanctuary, the bank took out what is known as "key man's insurance." The policy protects the lender in case Solomon dies and the congregation dwindles, leaving the church without enough income to pay its mortgage. Solomon said he works hard to avoid turning McLean Bible into "a cult of personality," but he added that the church would not be where it is today without him. Quoted from the Washington Post article cited in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.27.237 (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Solomon is the center of the MBC. The church serves him. There's no theological debate. The congregants come there to his "services" be entertained by the dancing girls, the full professional orchestra and singers as well as the videos, including testimonies from people whose lives were a mess before they came to MBC. Importantly, these people do NOT say their lives were a mess until they accepted Christ or anything like that. It's all tied to "his" church. His whole emphasis is selling membership to the church.

There is a respite center for disabled children on site (a good thing, my only association with the church is volunteering there) which is named for his daughter, Jill. One gets the feeling that this respite center wouldn't exist but for her disability. The other "charitable" efforts are de minimis given the incredible opulence of the "church." --FrancisDane (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Controversy
There should be a section on controversies surrounding Lon Solomon. The previously mentioned issue about his pay not being disclosed would be one such controversy. There is also the constant anti-gay focus of many of his sermons, and his advocacy for ex-gay programs (which have been shown to be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of gays and lesbians). In addition, he has tried (successfully) to pass off the fallacious story of Charles Darwin converting to Christianity on his death bed to his congregation as a fact (a fabrication supported only by the Lady Hope story). Certainly these warrant some sort of mention on the page, which, as has been pointed out, looks like it may as well have been written by the man himself. AllesJetzt (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Response:

Lon Solomon, the preacher. I've been attending MBC since 2000. Having been raised Catholic, I know when my "spidey senses" are up. For the first few weeks, I was extremely sensitive and aware to anything the pastor was saying that may have veered from the Truth, as I knew it. Finally, after two months of attending, I came to the realization, that this man, Lon Solomon, was actually speaking the Truth of the bible. Not a convenient truth but the kind of Godly Truth Christ wanted us to hear. Many of the controversial stances Pastor Solomon takes are based on biblical truths as understood from verses from this inerrant Word of God from the bible.

His detractors result from various issues, but mostly from issues of homosexuality that he has taught. I would not categorize denouncing sinful homosexual "behavior" to be one in the same as denouncing a person who is homosexual. The difference being that the former is the acting out of this sinful behavior while the latter is the mere acknowledgement of a condition, be it naturally born or chosen. It is critical to differentiate this distinction because, therein lies the rub.

A person who is born homosexual or has chosen to be homosexual is no different than a person with any other sinful affliction. Our sinful nature is a powerful reminder that we are all capable of sin. Bearing that in heart and mind, the Holy Spirit can offer grace to those willing to repent of their sinful ways. This is why, as Christians, we are called to love one another, as we love the sinner, not the sin. This is a great distinction often overlooked by less mature Christians.

These are also some of many truths I have learned at MBC since attending. I hope this provides a more helpful insight as to the kinds of real life changes happening at MBC through the efforts of the Holy Spirit as He uses Pastor Lon Solomon as a tool of the Lord. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.237.134 (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.237.134 (talk)

Why are you even on the talk page? You should be on some religious forum or something. The concept of 'sin' was created by religion. It can neither be proven nor disproven. To find that you, a member of the congregation following Lon Solomon, are defending labeling people who are 'being born gay' or have 'chosen to be gay' (which would suggest that YOU, and anyone else could CHOOSE to change your/their emotional and sexual feelings - in essence, meaning if you actually believe that nonsense, you yourself are bisexual) as sinners who have wronged God only adds further justification that this should be mentioned under controversies. There is no doubt that 'ex-gay' therapy is harmful to the individuals subjected to said 'treatment', and for a 'man of God' to advocate such a thing certainly constitutes a controversy. 96.255.181.13 (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)