Talk:Robert Morris (pastor)

Merger proposal
Almost all of this article is CTRL-Ved from the Gatewat Church article and has noting to do with Robert Morris as an individual. The extraneous information needs to be removed, with the biographical info fleshed out.

Or this article simply needs to be merged with the gateway church article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.126.202 (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with above poster. Article is mostly copy/paste. Also see WP:N. Should be deleted and redirected to Gateway Church (Texas). 173.175.52.101 (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added the merge template to the Gateway Church article. It would seem this article should either be merged or severely shortened. As previous users have said, it's mostly a copy/paste from the church article and has little to do with Morris himself. Woodshed (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Fayenatic (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Marriage
I saw that you recently added that Morris and his wife, Debbie, got married in 1990. Are you sure this correct? It says on this website they've been married for over 44 years, which would date their marriage to at least 1980.  R. G. Checkers talk 01:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * In fact, I'm pretty certain the marriage was in 1980 because of this Facebook post  R. G. Checkers talk 01:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We're not investigative journalists. For WP:BLP of a person involved in controversy (and their family members), the bar for inclusion for any fact should be well above "I found it on a Facebook comment". Any personal information that is not already widely published in legitimate sources should be pared back or omitted. &#45;-Animalparty! (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not investigation anything. I raised concern over the 1990 date because some of the secondary reliable sources about the abuse claims have referenced in passing that Morris was married at the time of the innapropriate conduct in the 80s, and he was. The date one gets married is basic biographical information and WP:PRIMARY is sufficient for sourcing it. To be clear, it is a post from Morris' account and thus passes WP:FACEBOOK. Morris has been very public about his marriage with his wife, Debbie, who has also been mentioned in secondary reliable sources as well, including at least one about the allegations against him (see USA Today). I see no BLP issues here.  R. G. Checkers talk 05:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Good job on recent edits. I fixed a couple I thought needed it, but most looked good. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @R. G. Checkers, good catch. I misread the newspaper article.  It says "In 2000 the couple had been married for 20 years...".  That would put the marriage date at 1980.  There is no need for the Facebook reference. Nowa (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Theology
I restored the sourced material on the Holy Spirit. The Christian Post seems like a reliable source. It’s not for us to engage in independent judgement to say his viewpoint is irrelevant after a qualified publication highlights it. There’s more in the article that we could summarize if it seems overly simple. WestRiding24 (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @R. G. Checkers
 * I believe you added it. Did you agree with my reasoning of removing it? TanRabbitry (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m conflicted because I do agree with what you said but at the same time a reliable source felt the need to publish about it. So I’m not sure.  R. G. Checkers talk 02:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * it appears he is talking about a different relationship between believers and the Holy Spirit than that of most Christians. The source goes into greater detail, so perhaps we can write a better summary. With so few reliable sources that address his preaching it’d be a shame to toss out any of them. FWIW, Wikipedia’s article on the Holy Spirit doesn’t seem to address his direct assertions. WestRiding24 (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello @Nowa
 * I did read the source. I think my changes were improvements. The way it's worded now is akin to saying, "historians view Abraham Lincoln as a male politician who was elected president of the United States." It's technically true, but bizarre. TanRabbitry (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that saying "historians view Abraham Lincoln as a male politician..." would be weird. However, per the source, Morris emphasized that he sees the Holy Spirit as a male person.  "“The reason I underlined the word ‘He’ is because the Bible never refers to Him as ‘it,’ and a lot of Christians do. They say, ‘we need it, we need the Holy Spirit.’ No, we don’t need it, we need Him. He’s a person,” the pastor continued."
 * So, order to properly reflect the source, I feel we need to specifically state that Morris views the Holy Spirit as a "male person". Nowa (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Allegation in the lede
@Augmented Seventh removed the allegation in the lede. How do others feel about this? I think the allegation is important in the lede since it provides context for Morris' resignation. Nowa (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree with Nowa. The allegations are DUE and relevant for the lead <b style="color: #E2062C ;"> R. G. Checkers</b><b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 23:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * it is true that the allegation seemed to have caused the eventual resignation.
 * usually, i keep salacious allegations of criminal behavior out of the lead.
 * i am deferring to reasonable consensus, as i can see either as being correct.
 * thanks for keeping the encyclopedia accurate, Augmented Seventh (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree both positions are logical. Maybe a second paragraph could be made that addresses the circumstances of his resignation would be a good synthesis. TanRabbitry (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the allegations are the cause of his resignation is not relevant because we don't state that he resigned because of the allegations. We instead state he resigned following the allegations because this is noted by several reliable sources. In regards to your other statement that we should "keep salacious allegations of criminal behavior out of the lead," I agree we should tread with a certain degree of caution with BLP's but MOS:LEAD says that the lead of an article should include "any prominent controversies" that are deemed due weight. In this case, the majority of coverage of Morris both in the text of the article and in published reliable sources is about the sexual abuse allegations. Thus, it ought to be seen as a prominent controversy due for mention in the lead. <b style="color: #E2062C ;"> R. G. Checkers</b><b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 23:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Read WP:LEAD. Theres a section on the allegations, and its DUE. The info should be in the lead. —2601:8C0:380:35C0:5461:811E:9DA5:5139 (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

"Allegations" and "alleged"
I have removed some instances of these words in the article because RS is reporting that Morris has confessed to at least some of it. He has publicly confessed, as reported by RS, to an innapropriate sexual relationship dated to the 1980s. He has not publicly confessed that it was a minor and thus we should keep that out of wikivoice. But to say there were revelations of unspecified sexual misconduct in the prose and the header is appropriate. <b style="color: #E2062C ;"> R. G. Checkers</b><b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 06:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Morris and Prosperity Theology
I'm moving this statement about Morris and prosperity theology from the article to here for a more thorough vetting. I think the wording is weak ("Some have associated...") and the sources appear to be opinion pieces by not necessarily notable people and/or are self published. Nonetheless, with proper wording, we might be able to say something useful.

How to others feel?

''Some have associated Morris with prosperity theology. '' Nowa (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nowa. I also had concerns, but not so much that I removed the information - I had not done the reading yet. My concern in reading those sources (which I did review) is that they did not clearly establish the link between Morris and prosperity theology, and the departure from evangelical doctrine on tithing. A hostile source might conflate the two in the same way a hostile source might conflate anitomianism with justification by faith. To be prosperity theology, there needs to be teaching along the lines of (per our page on it) If he is teaching that, we need the secondary sources that show that, and then this section can go back in. If he is merely teaching that in tithing, Christians may receive a reward for faitfulness, then that is not prosperity theology (whatever you think of it as a doctrine). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here’s a book with good credentials. Blessed: A History of the American Prosperity Gospel. It includes Gateway Church, with Morris named as leader, in “Prosperity Megachurch Table”. No further mention of him, though. WestRiding24 (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a start. The book says that prosperity megachurches are a minority of megachurches so it is not an uncritical list, but a single line entry in a table in the appendix is not quite what we need to describe the theology of the pastor. Starman (2021) (our ref doesn't have the date in it btw) is an MA dissertation. We usually would look for a Ph.D. or peer reviewed paper for an academic thesis. Bean (2017) is an opinion piece. Who is Alan Bean? The KW Redeemer article (Dunk & Dunk, 2019) is also undated in our reference. This article is quite good because it identifies specific statements of Morris, and evaluates them, but there is still an element of opinion about it, and who are Dunk and Dunk? But they point to a book, which looks good - but may, in fact, be too old to mention Gateway church. Then there is the Roys Report (Einselen, 2022). That one didn't make the case for me. I think Dunk & Dunk is worth pursuing, or perhaps something has been written specifically about Morris? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A few things to note. Firstly, Morris' view on tithing could reasonably be perceived as within the prosperity gospel. So, I don't think we need to try and find more proof that he has given prosperity messages in quotes and such. Then the question is whether or not reliable sourcing has thrown around 'prosperity theology' to characterize Morris' preaching. Firstly, there is certainly not enough sourcing to say Morris preaches prosperity gospel in wikivoice. The Bowler source is probably the best one since it calls Gateway and names Morris as aligned with prosperity theology. Then, there is the Starman source, which is a masters dissertation. Such dissertations are not reliable under WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but it's not hurting anything either and it does use evidence from Morris' preaching and seems reasonable. Criticizing the Bean source as an oped is not a good argument because opinion pieces are permissible in appropriate context and when attributed. Same is true for the Dunk & Dunk source. Now I agree the phrasing I put in originally was a bit weasely, but I'm open to other suggestions. I would just need to avoid wikivoice and give attribution of some sort. <b style="color: #E2062C ;"> R. G. Checkers</b><b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 00:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Morris' view on tithing could reasonably be perceived as within the prosperity gospel. This is a point of dispute. Kendall (1982) writes a straight down the line evangelical work on tithing, which mentions blessing, but is clear that blessing need not be material prosperity or financial reward. Morris' views may or may not be in line with that, but to be prosperity theology it must go significantly beyond that per what I quote above. Note that the definition says "always the will of God" and "increase one's material wealth" and that "financial success is seen as a sign of divine favor". Is that what Morris is teaching? I don't know. If it is, then it is prosperity theology and can be described as such, but the problem is that these labels will always be used too broadly to mischaracterise people as an attack. Or else they will be applied to widely in good faith, but not accurately. That is why whose opinion is relevant. I am not dismissing the opinion pieces out of hand - but we need to establish that their opinion is suitably informed and careful that they can support the statements. The Willow Creek critique (Einselen, 2023) is interesting. It is quite careful in itself merely suggesting that some accused him of preaching the prosperity gospel because he seems to soften the message with talk of blessing. It points to this book review which is worth reading, even if we don't use it. Note that the reviewer finds good and bad in the book, believes strongly that Morris' theology is flawed, but does not say he is preaching prosperity theology. If we are to have a theology section, it may be that we need something fuller and more nuanced to show where he sits on this.
 * Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Good points, all. It's probably best to leave out any description of his teachings until there are better and clearer sources. Attribution is a good idea. "Prosperity Gospel" could be a term used more by critics than by proponents. (Maybe the more positive, or specific, name is "Word of Faith".) WestRiding24 (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't recall the sermons but I have heard him preach that prosperity gospel is false teaching and he's publicly denounced it. I wish I had better reference than my own experiences, but if anyone goes digging, they should find quotes.... Provided all of his sermons haven't been removed from media. 52.144.111.232 (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't recall the sermons but I have heard him preach that prosperity gospel is false teaching and he's publicly denounced it. I wish I had better reference than my own experiences, but if anyone goes digging, they should find quotes.... Provided all of his sermons haven't been removed from media. 52.144.111.232 (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)