Talk:Derek Prince

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Regarding the edit by Zosodada, I think that changing Derek's description to "Religious radio broadcaster" is not a good idea. This is because:

  • Derek's ministry covered a lot more than radio broadcasting. As mentioned in the article, he published many books. In addition, he was the Pastor of several churches and preached regularly to large congregations as an itinerant Bible teacher. His Bible teaching engagements took him to many parts of the world, sometimes preaching to thousands at a time. To state that he was a "religious radio broadcaster" is not entirely accurate.
  • Also, Derek wasn't really a preacher of religion because his field was much narrower than the term suggested by the word "religion". Derek's primary work was teaching the Bible. To say he was a religious broadcaster is to say too much. There are many topics in religion / Christianity that Derek never engaged in. His primary work was Bible teaching.
  • The phrase "Internationally recognised Bible teacher" has been used frequently to describe Derek Prince. Those of us who are familiar with his ministry are used to this description. Derek Prince ministries has used this phrase very often.

At the very least, I suggest keeping "Bible teacher" in the article, but for now, I'll revert the change to how it was before.

Founding of Ft. Lauderdale movement--what exactly happened with Purvis?[edit]

Could someone give a source for the point about Eldon Purvis's homosexuality? All the published sources I've found on the shepherding movement are extremely coy about the nature of the "moral failing" that motivated the Ft. Lauderdale Five to undertake a new ministry. What exactly happened, and how public was the scandal?

The bio on Derek Prince by Stephen Mansfield mentions the topic briefly but does not go into a lot of detail.168.12.16.36 14:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know the answer to the above questions about Eldon Purvis, but he died on 1-23-2013 at the age of 80, so the respectable thing to do at this point is to just leave it alone. http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dayton/obituary.aspx?pid=162604795. Editorialideation999 (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a history teacher, ALL history is up for analysis no matter how unsavory the material. Censorship is the master of the slave.

Affair?[edit]

On May 5th 2008 someone took out the sentence stating that Prince had an affair with a married Irish woman, before his conversion, that led to the birth of a son. If this is true then it deserves to be in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC) It also features prominently in Mansfield's "approved" biography of Prince.R Bartholomew (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Arts?[edit]

His MA dissertation was titled The Evolution of Plato's Method of Definition, and won him a fellowship at the age of just 24.

I find this sentence rather confusing. At which university did Derek Prince take his MA degree? I should have assumed that it meant Cambridge. But there is an obvious problem with that: at Cambridge, as at Oxford and Dublin, an MA does not do any work at all beyond the requirements for the BA degree - he would just have waited the requisite number of years before becoming eligible to proceed to the higher degree (see Master of Arts (Oxbridge and Dublin)). Did he take an MA at another university? Or did he take another kind of degree at Cambridge? I can't think what that degree would be as I don't think Cambridge at that time had any master's degrees other than the MA. Maybe he did a BLitt or PhD. Or perhaps because the MA is effectively the undergraduate degree it really means that this was the title of a BA dissertation, although I doubt that there was such a thing all that time ago. It is certainly not right as it is.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is from Mansfield again, but he's American and a specialist on Pentecostalism rather than on Oxford. Prince certainly did a higher degree at Oxford - if it wasn't an MA I suppose it must have been a BLitt or MLitt or MPhil or some such. Probably not a PhD, though, otherwise he'd have signed himself "Dr." Please amend as you see fitR Bartholomew (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship at young age?[edit]

I'm also not sure that being elected a Fellow of King's at 24 was very remarkable back then. Today it would be absolutely extraordinary, but that's because one needs to do a taught master's and a PhD and then probably do a year or two of post-doctoral research, maybe getting the thesis written up as a book. But there are academics in British universities even today who are about 60 or older who didn't do any of this and went straight from their final undergraduate examinations to a fellowship of an Oxbridge college. By 24 he would have had probably three years after he took his BA in which to do some research and teaching, so I doubt it was really very remarkable.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mansfield finds it remarkable, no idea if he was wrong to do so. Please amend as you see fitR Bartholomew (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One source[edit]

This article contains a lot of text from the Derek Prince Ministries website so I have added the "one source" template. Also the language is not neutral: "God sovereignly directed her to six successive passages of Scripture." I request someone delete much of the detail and make the language more neutral. DBlomgren (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Quality[edit]

This article seems to suffer from some quality issues. For one, these sentences, under the heading "The Shepherding Controversy", appear un-encyclopedic:

Derek was the elder statesman of the group and lived by the principles he taught. Nowhere in any of his teaching on submission and authority does it suggest any person has the authority to demand submission. Nor does it suggest that those in authority make decisions for those under authority. The fact that these teaching were perverted and used by immature and unscrupulous is something seen in every facet of human endeavor.

Second, the entire biography section for Lydia Christensen Prince can be found on this website: http://www.thestoryoflydia.com/aboutus.htm. If we are not going to change the content, maybe we can change the reference to a website, as opposed to a book. (Websites are easier to access for many people.) I suspect, based on the quotation marks, that Ruth Baker Prince's bio section was acquired the same way.

As for Ruth, I suggest that section be carefully re-worded. "While she was there, God sovereignly directed her to six successive passages of Scripture," could perhaps be changed to, "Baker claims that, while she was there, [...]"

I'm a new editor, so I'm hesitant to make sweeping changes. Can I get some feedback on these proposed edits? Linguasordida (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the background statements are very casual and colloquial, and rather unencyclopaedic.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty language, I noticed the exact same quote as you, and the fact that it's still there a year-and-a-half later means that apparently no one in the interim has seen it as enough of a problem to justify exerting the effort to change the article. I would advise you to be bold and make the changes you feel necessary. If you don't, I may do so myself, though I'm not totally sure what those changes are (I suppose I'd have to read the source[s] first). Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demons and Deliverance[edit]

Regarding this part: "While in Seattle he was asked to perform an exorcism on a woman, and he came to believe that demons could attack Christians. This was at odds with the more usual Pentecostal view that demons could only affect non-Christians. Prince believed that his deliverance ministry used the power of God to defeat demons."[11] This does not adequately explain "the usual Pentecostal view." The "usual" view--as least as explained by the Assemblies of God and similar groups--is that Christians may be "oppressed" (thus, "affected")by demons; they cannot be "demonized" (normally termed "possessed"). Certainly, most (if not all) Pentecostals believe Christians can be "attacked" by demons. The original passage might be edited thus: "While in Seattle he was asked to perform an exorcism on a woman, and he came to believe that Christians could be "possessed" by demons. This was at odds with the more usual Pentecostal view that demons could "possess" unbelievers, but could only "oppress" Christians. Prince believed that his deliverance ministry used the power of God to defeat demons."[11] 173.218.68.139 (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - a bit better. although Derek was most particular about the terminology he believed the bible supported, he didn't use "prosessed" (won't say never, although that would have been a personal 'slip') as posessed implied ownership which for someone who belongs to Christ, ownership resides with Christ. He prefered, and used, 'demonize' which he took to mean an occupation, without 'title' (i.e. ownership). This put him in conflict with his contemporary Penticostal, who in the day understood that the oppresion could only be external, due to their understanding of the ownership issue. I trust I am being clear. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So - perhaps the extract could be amended as follows: "While in Seattle he was asked to perform an exorcism on a woman, and he came to believe that Christians could be "demonized" (normally described as "possessed" by demons - Prince avoided this term which implies 'ownership'). This was at odds with the more usual Pentecostal view that demons could "possess" unbelievers, but could only "oppress" Christians. Prince believed that his deliverance ministry used the power of God to defeat demons." :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source to show that "Prince avoided this term which implies 'ownership'"? Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We could start with - http://www.derekprince.org/Publisher/File.aspx?ID=1000034917 also in the book by Derek Prince "They Shall Expel Demons" pages 16-17 (see https://nuggets4u.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/they-shall-expel-demons-derek-prince.pdf - obviously don't use this reference in wikipedia - just mean it for you to look at) :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Kevinalewis, ok, I'm convinced. I'll support your wording. Thanks and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wording 'in-article' changed - please check through that I haven't made any mistakes - thanks for your input - the article is stronger because of it, I believe. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Kevinalewis, thank you kindly for being such a collegial editor. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Derek Prince. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Defective section[edit]

The section begins in 1971. There is no mention of Derek Prince's first 50+ years of life: his birth, family, childhood, education, conversion, marriage, etc. This article should contain much more biographical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yusuf1066 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section headed Marriage and the growth of his ministry says nothing about Prince's marriage apart from mentioning the name Ruth, who one presumes was his wife, but this is not stated. Koro Neil (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publications[edit]

@GorgeCustersSabre Why was 942879073 reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffyTheDragonSlayer (talk • contribs) 04:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see it was changed back. I added some more dates and complete titles. Should book lists like this be sorted alphabetically or chronologically? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffyTheDragonSlayer (talk • contribs) 03:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace nomenclature[edit]

Dear @BoyTheKingCanDance, May I know the reason for your reversion of the following changes I did to the Place of birth section in the infobox? : Bangalore, Kingdom of Mysore, British India (now Bengaluru, Karnataka, India) MS2P (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets of God[edit]

Derek Prince talk 86.20.201.176 (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Derek_Prince&oldid=1209032329"