Talk:Louie Giglio

Untitled
I'd like to add some information about his childhood, if anyone has any available. --Emplynx 01:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is GODawful... it speaks about jesus as a fact of life and reads like it has been written by someone in his camp. I don't know how to code wikipedia but i atleast wanted to put the lack of neutrality banner at the top. 96.50.10.234 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The style appears to lack objectivity and at times reads like what will our hero do next? This may be an example "leading to confusing days given the couple (Louie and Shelley) had left their efforts in Texas behind and now faced an uncertain future" implying that Louie and Shelley will triumph against the odds because of unquestioned exemplary faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.84.181 (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Moved from article
I've moved this comment from the main article to here:

While most of this information is correct. The timeline of Louie's father's death and his move back to Atlanta are a little off. Louie's father died before he was able to complete the "passing off" of the Baylor ministry. It was on the flight home to Atlanta for his father's funeral that Louie had the vision of tens of thousands of young people on their faces in worship and praise to the Lord... it was through this vision the Passion Movement was birthed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.220.207 (talk • contribs)

ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment
In the first section there is this:
 * Giglio's heart for the significance of the "university moment" was set

What does this mean? It isn't English. The citation refers to a passage in which G's heart is described as "on fire." That's a metaphor that's understandable. This isn't. It should be changed, or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eponymous-Archon (talk • contribs) 04:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What does "G" mean? It isn't English, exactly. (However, I agree that the "university movement" sentence is strange.) 204.65.0.20 (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Obama Inauguration withdrawal due to anti-homosexuality comments
I have restored the detailed information that accurately describes the content of the sermon by Giglio which caused controversy. This is NPOV and is an objective description of what was said. Giglio stated, "you might make this the note of Leviticus 20:13 and the book of Jude, we won’t look at those passages but there is some support and encouragement there to this topic." As one source says, he "references a biblical passage often interpreted to require gay people be executed". Leviticus 20:13 says: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly - "references a biblical passage often interpreted.." - yet in the article we have " referenced biblical scriptures that say..." That doesn't sound like restoring NPOV. This bit needs to be removed. St

Anselm (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There is much worth noting from the sermon in question, including his belief that homosexuality is a choice and his notion that Christianity provide a root out of "the homosexual lifestyle". But Giglio took the time to quote and discuss several Bible passages. It's hardly fair to make much of a passage he cited without quoting or discussing. That's underlining, not reporting the substance of the sermon. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I added some specific dates as well. The quick sequence of events tells a different story, instead of "In January" and "then withdrew". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can someone please explain the meaning of "they shall surely be put to death"? It sounds to me like there is only one possible interpretation (i.e. that "they shall surely be put to death"), which is semantically identical to "require execution." If this represents some kind of bias on my part or is incorrect in some way, please help me understand. Otherwise, let's use common sense and make this article better by restoring this information. He did refer to the scripture and say it was worth noting. The media thought it was notable enough to include it in their articles. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The media? Think Progress only quoted what he said, citing a Bible reference without quoting it or discussing it, while you have decided to track down that reference and tell us how others generally read it. No one is disputing your reading of the Bible. But if it wasn't a substantive part of what Giglio said in the sermon, it seems unfair to highlight it as you want to. And then you deleted the entire paragraph. How is that helpful to the reader? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If I deleted anything it was not intentional. I think I only added content back in. Here is the quote from Agence France Presse (AFP): "In the sermon he also referenced the biblical passage Leviticus 20:13, which is often interpreted as requiring that gays be put to death, and he urged Christians to 'firmly respond to the aggressive agenda" of the gay rights movement.' Here is the url: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jUz8gIlworLOUeTWwOFQHMtODYew?docId=CNG.cbd609407c038569bc16cc9c4f7cef09.151 It's a clear statement from a reliable non-opinion media source, and it appeared in numerous media accounts. (So not OR, and not POV). It is not being "highlighted", but is being listed with the other aspects of the sermon that caused offense, just as the news articles did. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * PeaceLoveHarmony, please do not add the Leviticus reference back in until you have obtained consensus here. You have had two editors disagree with you so far. I think it's better not to say who the opposition came from - it wasn't just the "LGBT community", but saying it was "from supporters of equal rights" is definitely POV. I also reverted the addition of "anti-gay", since it's such a loaded term. Obviously, the next sentence is going to explain the tone and content of the sermon. StAnselm (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * StAnselm, This is about complying with Wikipedia standards, not gaining consensus from a majority of editors who happen to be working on this article. The consensus of editors at any given time does not trump the standards. In this case, the only people removing the accurate, objective, well-sourced information about Leviticus has been you and a vandal who keeps deleting the whole paragraph. If you can present a credible argument that the wire service AFP is not a reliable neutral source, good luck with that. The New York Times and the AFP both characterized the sermon as "anti-gay". http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/us/politics/louie-giglio-inaugural-pastor-criticized-for-antigay-sermon.html (Actually the New York Times seems to be using a new word, "antigay" without the hyphen. Interesting.) Removing an accepted mainstream term for opposition to homosexuality because you think it is "loaded" is definitely POV on your part.  PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you should read Consensus. The thing is, what we are discussing is precisely how Wikipedia standards are to be implemented in this article. The wikilink for "anti-gay" goes to a disambiguation page - and it covers a range of attitudes and movements, from homophobia to LGBT rights opposition. StAnselm (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here, I think. One involves the nature of the opposition.
 * RE: "the announcement was met with opposition when a sermon Giglio delivered in the mid-1990s came to light." That phrase "came to light" is very odd, as if the sermon rose from the dead, and the opposition remains unidentified, which leaves the reader uninformed. What happened was: hearing the news, people natuarlly looked to see who Giglio was and one organization in particular -- ThinkProgress, according to the Washington Post -- immediately came upon this sermon and publicized it, which raised a hullabaloo in the blogosphere, and led to Giglio's prompt withdrawal from the event. I haven't found anyone else who is as clear about the publicizing of the sermon video as the Post. ThinkProgress, a liberal blog, raised the alarm. I think we should say what happened and that saying "came to light" is wide of the mark. (I'm a little suprised, I must confess, since I thought there was a more general LGBT response, but the LGBT names associated with this story praised Giglio's removal from the program, according to the New York Times, and as far as I can see they were did not jump on the story when Giglio was named and the entire contretemps resolved itself before they could even get press releases out on Giglio and the sermon.) Why don't we say that Think Progress, a liberal blog or whatever, found the sermon video and publicized it, igniting general criticism? More anon about Leviticus. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree - ThinkProgress definitely needs a mention. StAnselm (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

"[God] says very clearly in [Leviticus], verse 22, after he talks about a lot of different kinds of relationships, he says in verse 22: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination.” Now if you would look forward into the New Testament context, to the passage that most of us know most commonly with this issue, into chapter one of the book of Romans, let’s read a few verses together beginning in verse 18. If you’re taking notes tonight, you might make this the note of Leviticus 20:13 and the book of Jude, we won’t look at those passages but there is some support and encouragement there to this topic."
 * RE: Leviticus. To make this easier for anyone coming to this conversation for the first time, I'll provide some text to work with. Here is the relevant portion of Giglio's sermon:

Here is what Agence France Presse makes of this: "In the sermon he also referenced the biblical passage Leviticus 20:13, which is often interpreted as requiring that gays be put to death,..."

I think it is readily apparent that Agence France Presse has misrepresented Giglio's views by moving from "take note of" to quoting only a portion of that Bible verse and then enlarging upon it. This is not reporting. It's editorializing in order to demonize. Consider that Giglio in his sermon went on to contend that the "the only way out of a homosexual lifestyle ... is through the healing power of Jesus." That's along way from suggesting death as the solution.

Agence France Presse, whatever its reach or its reputation, clearly failed here, and Wikipedia should not repeat its misrepresentation. We have better summaries of the sermon that do not engage in the editorializing found in the Agence France Presse version. Even JoeMyGod, a gay blogger not known for pulling punches, said just this: "Giglio has delivered anti-gay sermons that denounced our community with quotes from Leviticus and demands that Christians fight against LGBT equality." And there's this from one of Giglio's critics, Frank Bruni (gay) of the New York Times: "Giglio’s past remarks that homosexuality offends God, that homosexuals yearn to take over society and that a conversion to heterosexuality is the only answer for them."

That's pretty much right on the money, I'd say, and better written than most accounts. No need to stretch the truth. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Think Progress isn't a reliable source, except to report on the opinions of Think Progress. Unless it can be shown, using reliable sources, that the Leviticus quote is directly tied to Giglio quitting the innauguration, then it isn't relevant and should be excluded. So far, all that has been shown is that he mentioned it once in passing during a 55 minute sermon. BFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.8.191 (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Louie Giglio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121110013102/http://modernmarch.com/2008/10/10/giglio-and-tomlin-to-plant-church/ to http://modernmarch.com/2008/10/10/giglio-and-tomlin-to-plant-church/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Louie Giglio. 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/20090310104918/http://human3rror.com:80/2008/05/11/chris-tomlin-leaving-austin-stone/ to http://human3rror.com/2008/05/11/chris-tomlin-leaving-austin-stone/

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) 08:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Louie Giglio 2019.jpg