Talk:Toronto Blessing

Primary sources

Finnusertop (talk · contribs), I noticed the primary source tag you placed today and was wondering if you could elaborate on your thoughts. I don't think this is a primary source since it is a TV show that had nothing to do with the Toronto Blessing, but referenced it in the cited episode. Please let me know your thoughts. Doctor^G  (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doctorg: I'm referring to consensus achieved in the RfC: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 63#popular-culture-RfC. In short, for inclusion of "in popular culture" content, you need to be able to cite a reliable source other than the popular culture appearance itself. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Aha! That makes sense. This was part of the article before I started working on it and, I thought it was an interesting inclusion, but wasn't really sure if it supported the content. I think it is easily removed without affecting the overall article. I haven't come across any reliable sources that reference this TV episode. Thanks for making the article better. Doctor^G  (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Addressing Kundalini

I think the concerns of Andrew Strom and the Kundalini Spirit issue are well addressed in the “alleged origins from outside the Christian tradition” section. This section also includes the counter argument from Randy Clark to provide an NPOV balance. I don’t think we need multiple paragraphs of content on this issue, but I could be wrong. Callsignpink (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

John and Carol Arnot link

The link is to one John Arnot who lived during the latter part of the 19th century. My guess is that this is not the current pastor of TACF. Could someone provide the correct link. Gracias!Jlujan69 00:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, how come my signature doesn't show when I type in four tildes?Jlujan69 00:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha! I see what happened. I somehow was not logged in before commenting. Hmm.Jlujan69 00:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The link for John Arnot on this page is indeed incorrect. I have no information about John Arnott who is the Pastor of this 'church'. I have however been heavily involved with a church in Scotland that was very much influenced by the Toronto Airport Fellowship and I firmly believe that its teachings and practices are so far removed from mainstream Christianity that it qualifies as a cult rather than church. This view is also held by several Christian theologians.

Although the view that this is a cult is held by several Christian theologians, this is in no way proof that it is a cult. Having been loosely connected with this church for about ten years, I can assure you there is nothing cultish about it. Cults are controlling of their people, discourage them from any other knowledge or teaching than what is in their own house, and demand 100% allegiance. TACF and John Arnott do none of these. Speakers at their conferences come from different denominations. People are free to come and go as they please. They encourage people to test all they teach against the Bible, and they release people at a very high rate. The teach the love of God the father, relationship with Jesus and God and the people to be the utmost priority, move away from a works based mentality into a grace based faith where you know who you are in Christ, and above all else to walk in the love of God and give it away to the world. Could you please tell me what is cultish or unBiblical about this? I wish I could say the same for most mainstream churches out there that claim TACF to be unBiblical or a cult.

The Arnott's don't have an article yet but I will be creating one later on after getting this article fixed.Callsignpink (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Bath, England

I have lived here all my life and have never known the city to be famous for revival of the toronto blessings. any comments? 86.134.216.101 17:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about this subject but this article seems really sloppy, almost to the point of being unreadable. It could use an edit.

24.81.247.235 00:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Both John Arnott and Benny Hinn have admitted to being influenced by Kathryn Kuhlman who was a charasmatic pentecostalist in the 50 and 60s. Benny Hinn has said that he actually receives an anointing from her bones in her grave. John Arnott's church Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship has a website that sells loads of stuff like special prayer mats, relaxation CDs and aromatic oils. If this church is emailed and asked to explain why they do certain practices like 'soaking in the spirit' and so on there will never be any reply. Other churches that follow the lead from TACF will not reply either. This may be a condition of the cult or more than likely because there is no biblical basis whatsoever for what is taught and practiced in this movement. I noticed that my criticisms about the TACF have been recently removed by the user who praised that church. Please explain why? Everything I wrote was true. In brief, if you want to follow the teachings of John Arnott then do so, however it has to be accepted that these beliefs are not consistent with christian doctrines that have been held for the last 2 thousand years. Sorry if you don't like.

The reason why they don't reply is simple. You aren't looking for an explanation, you are looking to prove them wrong. You have already assumed they are wrong and anything they say will be useless. Just because they don't answer you or practice apologetics does not make them a cult. Prayer mats? Please tell me what's wrong with that. 2000 years ago they were in wide use. Relaxation CD's? Sure, I listen to them as well. Nothing like having my quiet time with a quiet cd playing in the back ground with someone singing praise and worship to Jesus and God. What is wrong with that? Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't David call for a minstrel to play something soothing while he meditated? And as for the oils, these are anointing oils, not aromatherapy as you may think. Again, very Biblical. As for 'soaking', you are caught up in terminology. This is a term used to describe the modern equivalent of tarrying, meditating in the spirit, etc..., all things done over the centuries by Christians and followers of God, and all very Biblical. RESPONSE: yes I agree that the TACF does not dictate or abuse people like cults. I wrote the above comments that you are commenting on and I will briefly explain what I mean. Christianity has survived for the last 2,000 years simply through its passing on of doctrines and acceptance that the Bible is the word of God. I am not suggesting for one moment that the Christian experience is simply a matter of knowing scripture or being able to explain doctrine, obviously it is also a deep and meaningful relationship with God that is allowed through what Jesus suffered on the cross. I was involved with a church in Scotland that was very much influenced by what goes on in Toronto and I can assure you and others of the following. The shaking, falling, impersonation of animals, and loud screams are a learned behaviour and not initiated by the Holy Spirit. I saw several people shaking and shouting and claiming to have been 'filled' with the spirit and yet these same people would stand up again and go back into adulterous relationships or continue living totally dishonest lives!!! (yes we are all sinners, I know, however I believe that had the Holy Spirit truely been upon these people there would have been conviction of sinful activities that dominated their lives on a daily basis. This type of Charasmatic church tends to also have people who cannot explain even the most simple tenets of their faith. At the church that I attended we were visited by Steven Long from the TACF and he wanted to pray for 'gold teeth'. He suggested that we look into each others mouths for regular fillings before he prayed so that we would know whether or not they had been replaced with gold fillings. The pastor's wife allowed the person beside her to look into her mouth and guess what!! she already had a gold filling, but claimed she had no idea how it got there. Despite the church never ever being presented with dental records we were all told that she had been miracously given a gold filling, (I was there, she had the gold before the special prayer). I have watched videos from TACF and saw people claiming that God has told them to howl!!. well not sure what God is being worshipped there but the God that I am in fellowship with tells me that He loves me and sacraficed his own Son for me, that He loves all of humanity and longs to be in relationship with them, that he cares for the poor, sick and lonely and has a desire to be reconciled with his creation. It is intersting that the Bible teaches that there would be false teachers in the last days, these teachers are not going to be the Jehova witnesses or the likes but rather part of the body of Christ. Lastly, are you aware that both John Arnott and Benny Hinn both claim to have been 'inspired' by Katherine Kulhman? Hinn even claims to get an anointing from the bones in her grave!! I suggest that you look at Kulhman videos that are online and compare what she was doing to what Hinn and Arnott are doing and tell me if Toronto is indeed anything new?? laurarossjessica@yahoo.com.au —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.8.222 (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your question about Bath, yes - my church "Bath City Church" is a charismatic evangelical church of about 500+ members, which meets in the Forum, and is linked with the TACF and is under the "Partners in Harvest" organization. See www.bathcitychurch.org.uk 91.108.85.156 (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality?

I just stumbled on this article looking for information, and it seems rather biased to me. Quotes such as the following, for instance, aren't really helpful:

(It's a fact that Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship is not a church but a fellowship run by a family owned benevolent dictator Pastor John Arnott who has his wife Carol on the five man board along with his right hand man Pastor Steve Long to ensure that they have the monopoly and control. Yes it's not a democratic run nonprofit organization or a church owned and run by members. If John Arnott had any integrity he would have a 12 man board just like Billy Graham Evangelistic Organization? And Pastor Steve Long would not tell lies about others and be a proven coward – The Liar )

Because of that I put up a neutrality tag.

an the x student from Toronto School of Ministry please explain why her personal encounters with this 'church' should be considered in a debate about whether or not TACF is a church or a cult? The purpose of this page was to help determine whether or not John Arnott has a 'church' that is consistent with the tenents of Christianity. So glad to hear that you went on to do a theology degree and mission work. Before doing a theology degree myself I ran playgroups for infants, does this mean that playgroups should be seen as part of the Church. Also with reference to having your confidence built up.... this is cleary a beneficial thing for Christians, however again this in itself does not make the Toronto church correct in its teachings or practices. Also I bet you paid a lot of money to have this confidence building experience. Sadly it is my experience that when people come to realise that the false prophecies, and delusions that such 'churches' cause are taken from them and reality sets text taken from the website? If they were added, please remove them, this is not an exact representation of the quote and therefore is biased in its nature, and quite frankly, not very helpful! No I did not get this from a website!!! I am more than capable of writing my own views on matters without cutting and pasting on a website. I wrote the comment based on my experience at a psychiatric nurse who also has a degree in theology, unlike people who attend TACF and the likes I am able to discern!!. I hope that my comments were left on long enough to help at least one person who may be struggling mentally just now with these false teachings.

• It seems to me that the 'offending' text has gone. Any need for this neutrality tag to remain? Alpheus 18:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the comment about the churches who follow Toronto teachings not replying to questions because they believe that the person will disagree with them. Does this mean that all churches should not answer questions or arguments from those outside because the people are disagreeing with them? These churches do not reply because they cannot reply, there is no biblcial or historical basis for what they teach and do. Recent evidence of their heresies can be seen with the carry ons with Todd Bently — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.219.54 (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed

I think the NOV issues have been fixed as I have done a good deal of work rearranging, citing, and cleaning up the content. Please make a not (or add some content) if you feel this is still an issue.Callsignpink (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

What a shambles

This whole article needs to be rewritten. The phenomenon is discussed under the assumption that it and God are real, and thus reads like an editorial from a Christian newsletter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.47.81.52 (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the commentator in the previous paragraph is expecting a bit much at this point. A section on the sociological impact of this movement has not been included. Further, articles debating the existence of God are to be found in other sections of Wikipedia, under headings such as philosophy, apologetics, irenics, and the like.

This is an article focused on a charismatic Christian event so it is naturally going to include some assumptions about the existence of God, etc. But, any editorial feel to the article seems to be gone at this point and the NPOV seems to be intact. Callsignpink (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Interview Wanted

I would like to interview someone who has experienced this service. It will not matter if you have experienced the extreme behaviors mentioned in the article. I want your observations to find out what the circumstances of the service were, such as lighting, movement of congregation members, where in the group were any persons who did act out the behaviors positioned?

Researcher44

I might be able to help. Email me. Hyper3 (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality: External Link

External link seems very biased? Perhaps a neutrality warning should be added? John.meco (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I know your comment is a few years old so this may be moot at this point but the NPOV, I believe, has been fixed.Callsignpink (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

rewrite required

I would agree with the comments that the article needs to be rewritten to eliminate the sloppiness as well as additional references collected to substantiate some the information presented.

For example the piece about the 'Golden Spoon Prophecy' cites that it has been spreading among charismatic churches, however the reference when visited 1 Actually shows this is called the 'Golden Sword' 2 Doesn't contain any information on the spread of this teaching within charismatic churches in the 1990's up to today.

I would also suggest that a brief summation of the theological basis for the manifestations be included and referenced accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.236.14 (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. As someone who is not involved but personally knows a number of leaders within and connected to the 'Toronto Blessing' at Toronto and the UK, this article does not give an accurate representation of the Toronto Blessing. For example no one I know has ever referenced anything to do with 'golden sword', I can't see any evidence for this prophecy being allegedly spread around the charismatic church. I've also never heard of 'crunching', the article does not reference a source for this. I would recommend these items be removed

Adding content and references

I am far from finished with this but i have added content to the characteristics section, created an impact section, and added a chunk of legitimate references. I think we need to remove anything uncited but I'll get to that later. I'll be adding in links to articles of BLP's that were at Toronto or greatly impacted by Toronto but that will come later. I have plugged in some names but pages don't exist for all of them yet. This article is my primary focus for now so come back and check it out every few days and add in any content you think is relevant and citable.Callsignpink (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Citations and NPOV

I removed the npov tag as I think that has been resolved. Please comment if you disagree so we can fix it. We still need more references in the history section, I'll work on that this week but it will probably require some rearrangement of material. Callsignpink (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Making Good Progress

I have added quite a bit of content in the past few weeks, bolstered the references, and rearranged some of the flow. I think it is starting to take shape now. Please add some content if you have the time. Callsignpink (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Non-world wide view

Wikipedia is not a Christian based website, and therefore this article must demonstrate a neutral point of view towards religion. Claiming that something is negative or positive without specifying towards the Christian faith, is therefore a non-global point of view. While American Christians may assume that the spread of their personal religion through foreign missionaries is a "positive" thing, history shows us objectively that missions have been used to ultimately spreaad American Imperialism around the globe, or even as false pretenses to begin the African slave trade.

Similarily, the spread of kundalini teachings around the world as a negative thing is only from the perspective of the Conservative American Christian, and does not represent a world wide view. For non-Christians, the spread of kundalini knowledge could be seen from an alterative religion and or a scientific point of view. Here, the focus would not be that teaching kundalini is bad, but that Christians are inappropriately borrowing a foreign concept without bothering to understand the relgion/science behind the teaching, and are therefore ignorant and disrespectful of what kundalini is.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Toronto Blessing. 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/20060828130655/http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Latrain.html to http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Latrain.html

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) 10:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Toronto Blessing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 14:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Introduction and limitations

Before starting this review, I'd like to state that I am not Christian, but I do think the topic is very interesting. Perhaps you remember me from the previous time we worked together.

There will be many negatives coming here, but I like to introduce this by saying that the more a topic deals with the miraculous and with phenomena which are difficult to define rationally, the harder it is to fit in with Wikipedia's rules and regulations. So if you succeed at GA, it will be certainly rewarding and demanding of respect. Please note that the main issue in the article is that the sources are technically speaking not reliable: the other issues will probably be resolved if you solve this issue.

Overview

1. Prose:

• According to this Earwig scan, no copyright has been violated; there is just a YouTube channel that copied from this article, so the article appears to be popular.
• Although the subject is fascinating, the article reads a bit rough, some sentences such as in Toronto Blessing#Characteristics are lengthy and need to be split off.
• In the section Reaction and criticism arguments pro and con are not well organized, and the line of thought is sometimes hard to follow.
• The organization of the sections is curious. The article would be easier to understand if the section Toronto Blessing#Timeline of immediate and subsequently impacted events was the first or second section.

2. MOS: Generally the article agrees with MOS, but there is a video directly linked at Toronto Blessing#Claimed miracles and manifestations, which is not allowed. Also, the section Toronto Blessing#Similarities to other revival movements needs to be rewritten into prose as shown at WP:USEPROSE.

3. References layout: there are no dead links, and sources can be identified.

4. Reliable sources:

• Sources like [1], [2], though valuable sources of information in their own right, have little to no editorial oversight and should not be used in a GA wiki article.
• Primary sources like Hanegraaff's Counterfeit Revival and Macarthur's Strange Fire should always be used in combination with secondary sources that examine arguments on both sides with academic distance. Preferably all primary source content not quoted from a secondary sources should be removed from the article. Academic sources from the movement itself may be used with caution, provided they have been cited by mainstream scholars.
• I realize that the majority of the sources used in the article is therefore problematic. You may have to rewrite some sections, based on scholars or reliable news reports. The number of scholarly works used may not be sufficient, e.g. on the first page of a Google Scholar search there is only one work which is cited in this article.

5. Original research: Some information like Toronto Blessing#Claimed miracles and manifestations seems to have original elements or cherry-picking.

6. Broadness: I think the article is reasonably broad.

7. Focus:

• In sections Toronto Blessing#Characteristics and Toronto Blessing#Timeline of immediate and subsequently impacted events, there are interpolations like In December, 1994, Toronto Life Magazine declared TAV as Toronto's most notable tourist attraction for the year that distract from the main trend of thought in the section.
• Furthermore, section Toronto Blessing#Claimed miracles and manifestations is written in a quasi-scientific way, apparently as a defense that miracles did really happen. Descriptions of the phenomenon should instead focus more on the nature of this form of religiosity, what needs are met through it, how it connects with Christian doctrine, who is attracted to it, etc. It might be useful to merge this section with the section Toronto Blessing#Timeline of immediate and subsequently impacted events, though the latter section contains some critical responses that should be moved to the section on reactions.

8. Neutral:

• On the positive side, proponents and opponents are both mentioned in the article, extensively covered. Some sections such as Toronto Blessing#Timeline of immediate and subsequently impacted events have been written with much caution and an encyclopedic tone.

• Several sections, including the lead and section Toronto Blessing#Characteristics could be improved on in terms of encyclopedic tone: words like records supernatural events, manifestations and testified of being miraculously healed need to be quoted rather than written in the voice of Wikipedia—or simply rephrased. This also includes since the ... resurrection of Christ took place: although Jesus' existence is widely accepted by historians, the resurrection can only be described as a religious belief, not as a fact, even if is a fact for a huge number of devotees.
• The same holds for neutrality: Negative impacts came in the form of criticism... should be rewritten. As a rule, in controversial religious subjects WP:WTW should be strictly followed, and words like claim should be avoided, as they imply disagreement on the part of the editor.
• The section Toronto Blessing#Reaction and criticism should be renamed Toronto Blessing#Reactions or otherwise given a neutral header. On a similar note, the section on Impact on Christian culture should not distinguish between positive and negative impact, but rather describe events with an analytical distance.

9. Stable: article is stable.

10-11. Pics: Pictures are relevant and correctly tagged. But picture File:AFM_on_azusa_street.jpg needs one more detail to be filled out.

20 February

I will continue with a detailed review per section later on. I will first wait for your first response.

6 March

Nominator has not responded in time, despite having emailed him. Failing.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.