Talk:Gordon Hugenberger

message: Wouldn't there be a gain if we showed the institutional continuity of pastors at each church setting? MaynardClark (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Organizational continuity

message: Per GearedBull's request on Wikipedia:Third_opinion, I've come over here to take a look at the dispute and offer my opinion. I'll post more in a few minutes. --Aaron 18:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Digging deeper, I now see the knowthyneighbor.org link. However, I'm not sure whether that would be considered strong enough evidence, since anyone can sign anyone's name to a petition. WP:BLP is pretty clear that on controversial issues, if there's any room for doubt, it has to come out, especially if the subject is not particularly famous (as this gentleman is not). --Aaron 18:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that wasn't the question we were debating, but now that you mention it, you're probably right about the WP:BLP rule applying here. --Flex 18:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's a huge problem. I can offer my opinion on which phrasing is better if anyone wants, but it seems beside the point if nobody can find some direct verification that he's for the referendum. --Aaron 18:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I see that knowthyneighbor.org specifically disavows the accuracy of its listings ("KnowThyNeighbor.org presents this data as it was provided by Secretary Galvin and is not responsible or liable for the correctness of the list's content including correct spelling, correct or current corresponding addresses, or authenticity"), so I've had to pull the gay marriage section of the article for now per WP:BLP. --Aaron 18:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. From the sources, it is clear that he opposes same-sex marriage theologically, but his political stances may differ. IMO, it's not worth noting this particular theological opinion here, however, without introducing a more thorough section on his thought on various topics. --Flex 18:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Opinion 

message: The contentious part is this sentence (italics mine):
:[Hugenberger] publicly supports the 2006 referendum, which would allow the majority of citizens to vote to ban civil marriage for Massachusetts's homosexual minority by ammending the state constitution.
I contend that the italicized clause is POV because it does not let the facts speak for themselves and adds spin. The version I propose as more neutral is:
:[Hugenberger] publicly supports the 2006 referendum, which would ban same-sex marriage in Massachusetts by ammending the state constitution.
Note that the link in the italicized portion removes the piping but goes to the same page as the allegedly POV version. --Flex 19:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admire your perseverance. I am clear where you see spin, please note that it is your desire to avoid three things: 1) acknowledgement of the majority voting on civil liberties of a minority; 2) Dr. Hugenberger's opposition being associated with the pulpit (the church web site uses it, I did not write that); and, 3) Dr, Hugenberger opposing civil as well as religous same-sex mariage is where I sense your POV.
Your #1 is the only issue for which I have requested a 3rd opinion. #2 seems to be a clear cut case of citation format, not POV. The church publicly endorses his theological position by them having it on their website without a disclaimer, but I just don't think website layout is a proper part of the citation format. Do you dislike the formatting by Template:Cite_web? On #3, I think you could be mistaking my change of wording to a more succint version as POV. I was attempting to reduce the text so that it makes mention of the issue rather than trying to explain it here. The content of the amendment is not the subject of this article, after all. Why is that distinction relevant to Dr. Hugenberger in particular? I'm not principially opposed to having that part in there; I just think it makes it unnecessarily verbose. --Flex 20:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me think here, gotta pick the kids up. Will get back to this. Best, JimCApitol3 21:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is in reply to the WP:3O request. I strongly agree with Flex' argument and his (or her) preferred version, because it is factually accurate, considerably more succinct and because the alternative version violates WP:NPOV in that it carries the implied viewpoint that a referendum on banning same-sex marriage is less legitimate because it involves the majority deciding for the minority; this is a debatable assertion that the encyclopedia should not make. Incidentally, "amending" is spelled with one "m". I've made the appropriate changes. Best, Sandstein 20:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for third opinion -- take two

message: I wonder if you know whether the information on the website of know they Neighbor (knowtheyneighbor.org) that showing Gordon Hugenberger with a 3 Park Street address as having signed the Petition #05-02, the Constitutional Amendment to Define Marriage, reads as follows:
"When recognizing marriages entered into after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman." 
is accurate? Know They Neighbor's claim is that the information originates with the Secretary of the Commonwealth's Elections Division.
*Link to a Gordon Hugenbergr, 3 Park Street, Boston signature
::Given Hugenberger's views on marriage, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it were accurate, but that doesn't make that site a reliable source on the matter. --Flex 14:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Signator of Petition #05-02, a public referndum on the definition of marriage being one man and one woman?

message: User:GearedBull, You restored the current event tag "based on upcoming constitutional convention Nov 11, and Higenberger's recent edits emphaisizing Alive in Christ ministry seeking to alter homosexual behavior." :Category:Current events generally defines a current event this way: "[T]here is a statement on the page mentioning a date within the last month." Since there is no such date here, I have deleted the tag again. Yes, the amendment is still in process, but Hugenberger's listed activity on the matter is from two years ago, and edits to the WP don't count, no matter what the emphasis. --Flex 14:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current event?

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 16:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: From what I know of Gordon (as one of his long-time parishioners) and his sermons, which I have everything that was done in MP3 format, I would say this by way of opinion:
1. He does personally view that marriage, as revealed in Scripture, is between one man and one woman,
2. It is a lifelong covenant relationship, as witnessed by God,
3. Only Scripture would tell you that it is meant for one man and one woman (i.e., natural theology does not reveal this),
3a. Corollary #1: Paul and others were well-aware of gay unions (Nero and his partner, for instance, as well as pederasty, e.g., Plato et al),
4. Certainly with other Evangelicals (such as Elaine Storkey, Robert A. J. Gagnon, et al), he distinguishes homosexual practice vs. homosex orientation and notes two things:
* Paul does not have an understanding of orientation as different from behavior (in fact the former is not acknowledged)
* Paul does condemn homosex behavior
* many Evangelicals would say that homosex attraction (like attraction to members of the opposite sex outside of marriage) is a result of the Fall
* malakoi and arsenokoitai (1Cor 6:9) refer to the effeminate and masculine (passive / active) partners in a homosex partnership, and homosex practice is condemned
5. Gordon did sign on a Vision New England encouraged document stating a constitutional amendment,
6. Park Street supports "Alive in Christ," a ministry to support those who desire to change from homosex attraction and want to become heterosex attracted, and are trying to abstain from acting out on homosex attraction,
I would offer this as my observation: Gordon is not certain whether legislation of such a mandate is the best policy, since obedience does come from volition. Many Calvinists take that one of the roles of the law is to restrain evil and to delineate what is wrong -- for instance, if you allowed road rage, you would get a lot more murders.  Having laws that make murder a crime prevents murder from happening more frequently; it doesn't actually fully prevent murder or cause all people not want to murder.
In addition, these random factoids about Gordon could be mentioned:
* Gordon was the junior Hebrew fellow at Gordon-Conwell
* he was taught Hebrew from fellow Harvard graduate and friend Nicholas Granitsas
* Gordon's doctoral dissertation was regarding marriage and family in the Old Testament (Marriage as Covenant is kind of redaction of that dissertation)
* Gordon met his wife Janie at a Harvard-Wellesley mixer his freshman year
* he's a regular speaker at the Thursday Morning Men's Prayer Breakfast at the Union Club (9 Park Street)
* he used to teach Hebrew, but primarily he focuses on Theology of the Pentateuch, Christ in the Old Testament, and Exegesis in Judges
* he speaks and writes in at least 7-8 languages including Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, German, English  
* Gordon's favorite hobby (outside of memorizing multiple languages) is geology  
Gordonisms worth mentioning:
* The only current Park Street minister to have his own wikipedia page and facebook group
* Prefers to be called by his first name, or barring that, "Mister" Hugenberger, taking seriously Matthew 23:8 and context ("doctor" is Latin for teacher), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_(title)
* Good quotes from Gordon?  Like:
 * "Christianity is not just a crutch; you need a whole new pair of legs"
 * "The Gospel is like one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread"
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.49.52.20 (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments. Feel free to be bold and take a swipe at the article, and when doing so, please take note of our policies on original research, neutrality, and verifiability. I would suggest, however, that putting this much material about homosexuality might give the impression that he is obsessed with it, which I don't believe is the case. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  some commentary 

message: There is some confusion as to where and when Hugenberger obtained his PhD. 
It does not appear he obtained it from the University of Oxford (where it would be abbreviated as DPhil and not PhD). The Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies (OCHJS) is a recognised independent center at Oxford, but it does not grant degrees. It was known as Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies in the 1970s. Doctoral students at OCHJS must be admitted by the University of Oxford and they must also be admitted a member of one of its constituent colleges. If they are affiliated to the center but not matriculated at Oxford then they are independent visiting scholars and not members of the University.
His doctoral advisor taught at what became the University of Gloucestershire in 2001. It was only known as the College of St Paul and St Mary for one year in 1979. It is possible in theory that this predecessor college granted him a PhD in 1979.
I have made some edits, but I cannot verify where he obtained his doctorate.--IACOBVS (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education