Talk:Plymouth Brethren/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Politics

I have corrected the claim that the Plymouth Brethren "largely discourage" political involvement such as not voting in elections. I belonged to the Brethren (open) for years, and my mother was also raised in the Brethren. I NEVER ONCE heard any Brethren speak against voting, and I never personally met any who refrained from doing so. My mother remembered a few, however - she had a strict Brethren aunt who wouldn't vote. That view was NOT endorsed by the assembly she attended, however.

I personally know one Brethren elder who has held political office in New Zealand, and have met another Brethren elder who was a high-profile member of parliament (similar to a congressman) for a number of years. Over the years, I have seen a number of Brethren candidates for public office (and don't forget, there are only 15,000 of them in a population of four million). I don't know what stance the Brethren take in other countries, but I have NEVER known them to oppose political involvement. As I said, there were a few who did in my mother's generation, but even then, it was a minority stance. David Cannon (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Perching on a UK branch where the doctrine-enforcers discourage supporting political solutions to problems such as 3rd world poverty I assumed my observations were true. Personally, I am pleased to hear the Brethren in other parts of the world are more politically minded. Am I right in thinking that the Taylorites use politics for personal gain and not for improvements in others? At least the Plymouth Brethren article no longer ends with Taylorite politics, which had been bugging me for quite a while. Thank you for the correction!--Another berean (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome:-) One clarification I should have made is that while Brethren in my country do not discourage political involvement, neither do they tell those in fellowship what party or candidate to vote for - they leave that up to individual conscience. (This is not an unusual position for churches - very few churches, of any stripe, tell their members how to vote in this country). As for the Taylorites: I know little about the Taylorites other than what I've heard through the secular media - they long kept pretty much to themselves and until recently have made no public statements, so the only information available has been from those who have left the movement. They recently authorized a website (curious, because they're not supposed to believe in computers!) denying, but not explaining, most of the allegations made against them. I really don't know what to make of their motives for getting involved in politics. They always taught that it was the devil's territory. Why that stance has changed is anybody's guess. It MAY be for personal gain, as you suggest, but I have difficulty seeing what that gain could be, because churches do not receive government funding in New Zealand. Or it could be that Bruce Hales (the "Elect Vessel" as they call him) has a different attitude from what his predecessors had. (I know they are not supposed to have an ordained priesthood, but the Taylorite branch has morphed into one that has one in all but name. Bruce Hales became the Elect Vessel in 2002, if I remember rightly). Whether he genuinely thinks differently from his predecessors, or whether he has some undeclared motive for trying to influence politics, I have no idea. What I personally object to, strongly, is the way the Taylorites try to influence politics in secret. I would have no objection if they participated openly, but this behind-the-scenes manoeuvring sounds too much like the workings of a secret society for my liking. David Cannon (talk) 11:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I should have said "..supporting possible political solutions" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Another berean (talk • contribs) 09:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The official line within the Open Brethren in the UK is that as God elects the Government, even in democracies, where most voters cast their votes out of self interest, and that if one, for the sake of argument, casts a vote for a party more likely to be more sympathetic to 3rd world poverty, and if that party is not elected as government, then the vote was casted against the will of God.--Another berean (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Disciplinary methods?

Do both divisions of the PB practise 'shutting up' (shunning) and 'withdrawing' (excommunicating)? Shouldn't this be mentioned since it is peculiar to the PB? Malick78 (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The Taylorites most certainly do - the media has been full of it recently. Among the Open Brethren: in one of the assemblies that I once attended, one couple was asked to leave for living together without marriage. They were not shunned in the sense of not being spoken to, but were told that they would not be considered part of the assembly, and would not be welcome to take communion, while living together out of wedlock. They were also asked not to attend the youth group. Another man was excommunicated, partly for committing adultery and partly for making unauthorized statements, which he claimed were on behalf of the assembly, against other Christians. In both cases, excommunication was resorted to only after efforts to persuade the persons involved had failed. I think most Open assemblies did - and probably still do - practice excommunication for those kinds of reasons. I have heard of SOME assemblies (but not all, by any means) exercising the policy more strictly than that. My mother told me that in her day, excommunication was much more common than it is today. But, from time to time, it is still practiced, yes. David Cannon (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think you need to clarify your statement that "shutting up" and "withdrawing" are peculiar to the Brethren. The terms probably are - I haven't heard them used in any other contexts. But excommunication, as such, is not: the Pentecostal church I attend believes in it, though very rarely practices it. I believe Roman Catholics and some Baptists, along with a few breakaway Presbyterian groups, practice it. So excommunication is not a particularly Brethren thing, but the terminology you used almost certainly is. In my time among the Brethren, I never heard the term "shutting up," but I did hear the term "withdrawing", in the context I mentioned above. In media reports, ex-Taylorites have used the "shutting up" term, so it appears to be a big thing among that branch. David Cannon (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure 'shutting up' - shunning - is done by many other religions - when members walk past each other without acknowledging them... Ngaire Thomas also describes that while being shut up, she and her husband weren't allowed to have sex! That certainly is peculiar to PBs. The question remains, btw, what should we put in a section on disciplinary methods? Malick78 (talk) 10:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Similar practice from what I experience in regards to the Open Brethren in the UK. They are put out of fellowship but with the view to restoration.The elders, however, make all the decisions including the decision to restore fellowship, which some say is unscriptural in that it should be the whole assembly which has that authority in regards to disiplinary matters. Shunning by family members is more of an Exclusive thing, which I suspect is only carried out by Taylorites. It is important,in my opinion,that the person under discipline is shown love. Have fun grubbing, David, I'm researching on some other stuff.--Another berean (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to make sure we all know what "putting out of fellowship" means. In the open assembly I attended, that would not mean that you didn't talk to the person, or even eat a meal with them. It simply meant that they were not to come to the worship service. This is somewhat answers the original question, only the Exclusive Brethren practice shunning.Whiskeyricard (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Another point: you talk of "both divisions of the BP." That is a broad statement, and is generally accepted by both non-Brethren and Brethren alike, but I think it's a bit simplistic. That's just my own view, by the way. There are a number of "streams" among the Open Brethren, with varying interpretations of doctrine and practice - NOT formal organizations, but informal networks - an assembly is more likely to invite visiting preachers from its own "stream" than from another "stream", and there are several divisions among the Exclusive Brethren also - I've mentioned the Taylorites (the most extreme group of all, and the only Exclusive group in New Zealand), but there are others internationally. So "both divisions", implying only two divisions, seems a bit of an over-simplification to me. I'll do a bit of grubbing around on the web, because I cannot put any of these observations in the article unless I can find a third-party source for them. David Cannon (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ive been thinking about the various streams of the Open brethren within the UK. I have only visited half a dozen though. Here is what I think is a rough classification and from what I have seen and from what I have been told by others :-

Stream 1 : Based on very early Brethren and Muller/Groves principles. United in the bonds of love and peace, with the ability to openly discuss and agree to disagree over finer points of doctrine. Very open in regards to accepting people into fellowship.

Stream 2 : Like Stream 1, but where there is disunity and heated doctrinal arguments.

Stream 3 : Take on board Exclusive doctrine. ( the founders of the Open Brethren didnt develop finer points of doctrine and were more doers than thinkers) Unity is based on adhering to the doctrine, with the abandonment of the very early Brethren principles. Individuals are unable to develop their own convictions and are brow beaten into Exclusive teaching. Stream 3 may arise as a solution to the problems in stream 2 and is brought about by strong leadership. Accepting people into fellowship is difficult in this stream. Personally, it took me 6 months to be received into fellowship. I came from a charismatic church in which I was not convinced about the goings-on in there and failed to be moulded into a charismatic. The brethren wanted to ensure that I was not going to spread bad doctrine into the assembly meeting. Stream 3 are independent churches and therefore still have the problem of ensuring people who are put out of fellowship do not slip into fellowship somewhere else. Stream 3 churches are able to morph back into stream 1 churches with a bit of help from above and thought/action from below.

Stream 4 : An Assembly with very few people in fellowship, which therefore struggles to function effectively.--Another berean (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I like to share my thoughts. An Exclusive Brethren view of the Open assemblies, from what I have read, is straight to the point. They see them as a series of independent meetings which results in problems such as the extreme difficulty in carrying out effective discipline(ie preventing a brother under discipline slipping off elsewhere and going straight back into fellowship with another open assembly). As http://www.chaptertwobooks.org.uk/assets/own/190001.pdf states "There can be no clear-cut division amongst those who practise independent principles. Obviously a thing which already has no cohesion cannot be divided. Pass a knife through a pile of sand and it remains as sand as before". The source however does identify the formation of the Needed Truth Brethren in 1889 from the Open Brethren in pursuit of more order and less chaos. However, there could well be certain subtle and dynamic streams or flavours within the open assemblies but due to their autonomy are very difficult to identify and classify.

With regards to the Exclusives, from what I gather, divisions have occurred generally over a specific case of discipline. The putting out of fellowship of individual(s) is sometimes not supported by all those Exclusive assemblies united together. Some support the discipline, others dont. The problem is not rectified and a division occurs.

I am not sure how successful the Exclusives attempts to heal divisions (as mentioned in http://www.chaptertwobooks.org.uk/assets/own/190001.pdf ) have been since that article was written.

Another observation I would like to make is that I think Darby became almost like a pope figure within the Exclusives which is partly due to Darby's perception of Christianity being in ruins and that the spiritual state was so low, and there was not enough spiritual people around to form a plurality of high standard overseers in each assembly. I sympathise with Darby on this one. A critic possibly may say that it also allowed Darby to formulate what he deemed to be true doctrine and impose it on all the assemblies. When Darby died, "papal succession" was passed down to another leader, and this lineage can be traced to the Taylorites. Whether or not the splinter groups away from the main lineage also have and had single strong leaders is something I do not know, but I think it is not the case.

Something which has enlightened me in my understanding is concerning a young brother in fellowship at the tight Open meeting in which I also gather. When he visits his relatives he fellowships with an Exclusive meeting of the Glanton division. Apparently, the tight Open meeting is tighter in regards to letting people in to the meeting to break bread with them than the Glanton meeting!. Apart from that, I am told there isnt much difference between the two, yet the two meetings and oher meetings are still divided on historical grounds. Quite sad really.--Another berean (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Non Charismatic

A new section possibly? Although essentially non-charismatic, apparently there are hybrid Pentecostalised Brethren assemblies around with improved styles of church government which ought to be mentioned. See Arthur Wallis --Another berean (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

By all means mention it - I think it does deserve a section. As for the "improved" styles of church government, I'd be a bit cautious, because it's a matter of opinion whether the structural/governmental innovations are improvements or not, and wikipedia adheres to a neutral point of view. Perhaps we could call it "modified" styles of church government. It may also help to clarify that Neo-Pentecostal developments and changes in the form of government among Brethren do not always go together, although they often do. One Brethren assembly in my own neighbourhood, for example, has a Pastor who does much of the preaching - and the assembly is still regarded as non-Charismatic. Conversely, I believe there are Brethren assemblies that show Pentecostal trends, but are still governed in the traditional manner. What the two developments have in common is that both have happened at about the same time, very often - but not always - impacting the same assemblies. David Cannon (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I will do my best but others may have a better idea of developments outside of the UK. We can work as a team in the formulation of words. --Another berean (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The split between the Open and Exclusives

I think there needs to be a lengthy section or possibly even a seperate entry on the Newton-Darby battle in the 1840's and the way the fight spilled into the assembly led by Muller and Craik in Bristol which led to the Open/Exclusive split in 1848. Ive ordered a book on the battle so it might take a while if no-one else doesn't want to pick up this task. The Newton entry also needs to be added in English. At the moment we only have a German version. --Another berean (talk) 06:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have created a Benjamin Wills Newton English entry in wikipedia which details the Darby v Newton struggle which led to the Open/Exclusive Split. Pleas help in editing the entry. Alternatively, any advise or suggestions will be gratefully received on the Benjamin Wills Newton talk page. --Another berean (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ngaire Thomas

About the author being shunned for using contraception. Wow, you dont have come up with gems Malick. Are you sure this was an Open Brethen meeting? If the source doesnt specify which type of assembly I would say it has to be an Exclusive one. Is the source avaliable on the net? When did this occur? Open Brethren can be tight but if true, that assembly must have been run by a bunch of tyrants. The quality of elders can be problem but that is truly shocking. Surely it belongs to the Exclusives. --Another berean (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference, to my relief, says the author belonged to the Exclusives. Clarified article to state this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Another berean (talk • contribs) 14:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have put a proper ref in earlier - now it's done. Btw, I'd recommend calling the Exclusives Exclusive all the time, not Closed (and definitely not 'closed tables') since their page calls them Exclusive. Also, the term 'table' is a little too obscure for most readers, like quite a bit of the terminology in the article. (What the hell does 'charismatic' mean for instance? I followed the link and was little the wiser...) :) Malick78 (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, it is confusing. I will get onto the task as soon as possible. Ive got the brain the size of a planet and they ask me to do the edits. I love Marvin the Paranoid Android--Another berean (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The entry for charismatic gifts was a bit jumbled, did a quick fix. It reads better now. --Another berean (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Christian Zionism

What is the connection between Plymouth Brethren and Christian Zionism? There has to be one, as Orde Wingate created the Israeli Defense Forces and is referred to as a Christian Zionist by Sir John Glubb. Wool Bridge (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the connection is in Darby's dispensationalism. Darby believed that once the church, (which according to Darby doesnt include Old testament saints), has been secretly raptured then the focus will be back on Israel with God's promises, currently suspended, being renewed with Israel being given a final chance to be faithful, and after 7 years of tribulation the Lord returns to Jerusalem and commences a 1000 year literal reign. Alternative theology is that all God's promises previously relating to Israel now extend to the church, the church includes the Old Testament Saints and there is no present or future distinction between the church and Israel. That is my understanding, others will be able to express or understand it better.--Another berean (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[1] --Wool Bridge (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Satire? Vandalism?

...the Taylorites who are known for their denial of the eternal sonship of Christ, extreme isolationism, whiskey drinking, refusal to use computers or the internet... Flapdragon (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I know the comments about whiskey and computers are true of some Exclusives in New Zealand. I don't know if they are the Taylorite-branch or not. ^rossnixon 02:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

NO PEEPING —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.55.213 (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

External link excess

There are too many external links, so I just culled a load. I will remove more soon, but it would be nice to hear other people's opinions first. See WP:NOTREPOSITORY for more info on how this section should look. Basically, the section is completely counter-productive - no one will read all those links because they are confusing - each section should have no more than 5 links at the most I'd say. Thoughts? Malick78 (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i tend to agree. I will have a look at each one and suggest the ones which I think can go. What are other peoples candidates for deletion? Also I notice the Research Library section has been deleted. Some of those links were useful but I will try and incorporate the useful ones as references. --Another berean (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Geography

"in Dublin in around 1827 and soon spread to mainland Britain"

Dublin was in the UK at the time but not Britain. Britain being one of the main islands of the UK at that time in history, Ireland being the other. Hence the phrase would more correctly be:

"in Dublin in around 1827 and soon spread to Britain" or indeed "in Dublin in around 1827 and soon spread to other parts of the then UK"

194.168.231.2 (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

Some suggested headings for further information that would be useful additions to the main article: DFH 20:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Origins and early history (more detail)

I believe that there should be a link to excpansion of the Movement in the Netherlands (De Vergadering van Gelovigen") and that it wss there also much more influential than what the numbers would suggest. People like Voorhoeve and Samsom as examples. User:Jacob de Raadt 2010-06-01. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.165.88 (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Notable Members reorganisation

This section has recently been reorganised. IMHO, it was unnecessary - but worse - it was done badly. References were removed (we now have numbers which lead nowhere in the ref section), alphabetisation was done badly (by first name, not surname), the groupings are not great (Religious influencers is a bad subheading - who was influenced? The PB or other people?) and the descriptions are not great (the smallest problem). Could whoever did it and whoever supports it please clean it up, because while it has no refs it can all be reverted anyway. As a footnote, I feel all this was done in the first place to avoid having a criminal, John Bodkin Adams, as the first in the list. It seems like an attempt at a white-wash... Malick78 (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I was also annoyed that Benjamin Wills Newton got deleted. Another undesirable?--Another berean (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with "Another berean". B. W. Newton should be kept on list, and I can see him already on. But the note after his name is not in place. "Disagreements with J.N. Darby led to the 1848 division" should be transferred to George Muller. For B. W. Newton, should add "Excommunicated after 15 years fellowship due to disagreements with J. N. Darby, which led to 1845 diversion". Also for Francis William Newman should add "Excommunicated by J. N. Dary after 5 years fellowship when embraced Theism.". I do not see Dwight Lyman Moody on the list. He should also be added, with a note "Preacher of 1859 revival. Had fellowship with Open Brethren only a short time during his preaching in England". Otherwise, this list violates the NPOV policy. As for John Bodkin Adams and John George Haigh, please read my note in "Notable Names" box on this page. We have to respect the rules of fellowship of PB when defining who was PB. The list should be revised, and all persons inserted only because they were raised in PB houses should be removed. Truly notable names should be added, whither have positive or negative enouncing on PB. Otherwise, again we are violating NPOV. M Dairy (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• We do not need so many notes after people's names - a short description should suffice. As for Adams and Haigh, if there are refs calling them members, then they meet the requirements for entry. Adams, btw, was a member of the PB all his life. Haigh left in early adulthood. Furthermore, if the PB claim children as part of their flock - why should we remove those who were merely 'raised in PB houses'??? That seems disingenuous to say the least. It may be worth farming off the list to its own page now that it's quite long though. Malick78 (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You again Malick78. If short notes only, they should be accurate. If someone was in fellowship, but at certain stage was excommunicated it should be mentioned, otherwise the notes are not neutral. For example, if this is not mentioned after F. W. Newman, a reader will understand wrongly that PB embrace his Theism. The note after B. W. Newton is not correct historically. For Adams and Haigh, I hope you read the above note. Again, PB consider children as part of God's flock (not their's), but not in fellowship. Fellowship for Adults only, and to be required personally, not by parents or any other, and without any outside imposing. They are not PB until they ask for being so and accepted by the assembly. If we are speaking about PB, we should only speak about whom were recognized by them to be so, not whom we consider so. M Dairy (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ive changed the comments to B.W.Newton. "Excommunicated after 15 years fellowship due to disagreements with J. N. Darby" may not be the correct phrase, though. My opinion is that Darby didnt really become "Pope" and start issuing edicts and excommunications until his main rival,Newton, had been removed. Newton left the Brethren as he had been demonized and his position became hopeless. --Another berean (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You Dear Another berean. I suggest to remove "which led to 1848 division" as according to all historians, this division was between Darby and Muller, even if the dispute was about how to deal with Newton's teaching. According to Trotter, B. W. Newton was excommunicated after discovering his tracts by Harris in 1846 after about one year of his last discussion with Darby, upon which Darby withdrew from Ebrington meeting. I hope also to add comment to F. W. Newman about being excommunicated, to make clear to the reader that his philosophy does not relate to PB. I agree with you, Darby never was a "POPE", even in case of Newton. But I am carefully using neutral words avoiding expressing my opinion. What I said is absolutely historical facts. M Dairy (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Its very difficult not to be biased. History tends to be written by the winners. Am I correct in thinking Trotter was in the Darby camp? Have you read any of Samuel Tregelles's work? He says the division would never have happened if Newton had subscribed to Darby's doctrine of the Secret Rapture. If you want to add excommunication remarks dont forget Cronin, excommunicated when he was a very old man. --Another berean (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

William Kelly also got excommunicated! --Another berean (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes Trotter was in Darby side. As for Tregelles and Neatby works, they cannot be reliable, as there are many conflicts in there works. Please read A. Miller. Wigram, Napoleon Noel, and "Narrative of Facts" of Darby. Newton tried to introduce the dispute about Rapture in discussion, but Darby refused to discuss it because it was "personal View" but insisted on discussing clergy problem as a teaching. At that time (1845) Darby new nothing about Newton's teaching about Humanity Of Christ and atonement. The only problem he had was clergy. An evidence that Treggeles claim is not true is that the dispute between Darby and Muller, which ended by division, never been about rapture, but about how to deal with the Humanity and atonement teaching. as for Cronin, I do not object to add excommunication note, but there is a big difference. Newton and Newman were excommunicated because of doctrinal issues. Cronin kept on the same doctrine, but behaved in a way not accepted by many. I believe, the reader will gain nothing from such addition. May be this will show one of the great failures of PB in dealing with such minor problems. Again, if you will add this comment, it should be completed with a note about the division resulted in 1881 between Darby and Kelly.M Dairy (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Another berean, I was editing while you put your last edit. Park street Group considered Kelly excommunicated. But it actually was division not excommunication, because more than 50% of the brethren did not recognize Park Street behavior concerning Ramsgate meeting. Fair brethren sided Park Street kept high respect to W. Kelly. William Kelly and all who sided him Kept high respect to Darby and his group. You can read the last letter of Darby in Napoleon Noel,s "The History Of The Brethren" to see how he kept esteeming W. Kelly. In 1926, 1933, 1954, the breach was healed gradually. I am Happy with discussion with you, and hoped could be personal not on Wiki. M Dairy (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, M Dairy, for your comments and offer for 1:1 discussion. My opinion is that the reason for Cronin's excommunication etc should really be added to the Exclusive Brethren or Cronin's article and comments after each notable member kept to a minimum. If, however, you feel strongly about it, I would have no objections if you want to add a comment to Cronin or change the "Branded as a heretic" comments I added to Newton.

In regards to Adams and Haigh, I know Malick78 has very strong views on these. It is unfortunate that Adams appears as 1st in the list. I think Adams might have originated from a very austere cult like Exclusive Brethren branch and this might be worth mentioning if Malick, yourself, or any other readers, knows which branch he came from, so that the reader can discern that there are various "flavours" of PB.--Another berean (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Of the five books on Adams I've read, not one mentions a specific branch of the PB. This may be because while he grew up in possibly a very strict branch as a child, he then went to normal PBs in Eastbourne - so the influence on him was from a mixture of branches. Malick78 (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection on adding any information as long as it is true historically. Feel free to add the grieving story of Cronin, but it should be clear that excommunication was not for doctrinal issues as in case of Newton and Newman, but because of breaking bread with a congregation not in fellowship. When adding for Cronin, please add the same for Newton and Newman. For W. Kelly, as I explained, it was division not excommunication. The same as G. Muller case. Adding the group against each name of this long list is not easy. Many names are not known with which group they were, except the famous names. If you have references for all this long list, it would be good addition. Another problem, is that many transferred from one group to another, especially between Kelly and Open groups. I do not think Adamas was raised in a family with James Taylor Jr group. This may be possible with Haigh. His mother behavior supposes this. But Adams kept attending the meetings till his death. This suggests a very loose group. But I have no reference. M Dairy (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Wills Newton seemed to differ from many brethren over the significance of the sufferings of Christ. One member once said "they went in too deep and forgot to come up for air" sometimes excessive scholarship is thought to interfere with the enjoyment and understanding of the Scriptures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.240.219 (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to leave any edits to others in regards to notable persons. In regards to history I have only read books about the general history of the movement together with Burnham's book about Darby and Newton. The whole PB article is a little thin on the ground in regards to history, for example the fallout between Darby and Newton is barely mentioned and the rift between Darby and Muller is not mentioned at all. I can understand that mentioning divisions does not encourage unity but I also sense that there is an attempt to sanitize history. A good example is the misconception that Darby and Charles Spurgeon were good friends, I have heard this being said a few times within the Open Brethren. On further research Charles Spurgeon was, in actual fact, a good friend of Newton. --Another berean (talk) 08:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I will not edit any thing I did not write, neither Notable Names nor any other box. I put my opinion on this page only. If convinced, who added the note or name will edit. Mentioning divisions is only history. I believe, the divisions resulted from disputes about fundamental doctrinal issues are important to be known to the simple reader, who is searching the differences between groups. I never heard that C. Spurgeon was a good friend to Darby. He was a bitter enemy to him. Darby did not try to reply to Spurgeon charges, because they were personal, and not about doctrine. You can read the articles of Spurgeon "Plymouth Brethren" and "Mr. Grant on the Darby Brethren" (Both available on internet). It is true that Spurgeon was a good friend to B. Newton, but did not agree on his teaching. M Dairy (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ive read those articles. I was the one who added the links. The Darby-Spurgeon friendship myth may not be as widespread as I first thought. Do you have any sources for Spurgeon not agreeing on Newton's teaching? I remember reading somewhere that Spurgeon once invited Newton to teach but the invitation was declined. I have also come across very little on Spurgeons views of Darby other than those inferred by the articles you mention and also a reference to his views of the Darby Bible. --Another berean (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The best reference that Spurgeon did not agree on Newton’s teaching is his sermons and works. When I read Spurgeon I believe I am reading one of the early brethren. That he had been strongly influenced by Darby's writings cannot be argued. But in trial to denounce Darby he said in the references I mentioned that he did not find any thing worthy in Darby's writings!!!!. When he was asked about rapture, he escaped answering, but his sermons declare that he believed pre-tribulation as Darby explained. By chance, on the daily meditations of brethren, even exclusive, you will find many articles for Spurgeon. I read many in English and some translated to Arabic . I know nothing about his invitation to Newton to teach in his tabernacle, but it is expected, because they were very close friends, not because they had one thought, but because they fought against one man, Darby.

Dear Another berean, I fear we are speaking about issues not interesting to other readers. How can we communicate personally? M Dairy (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Clicking on User talk:Another berean and selecting "E-mail This User" ought to work, if your wanting a 1:1. Ive had one or two email dialogues with others who probably share the same thoughts as yourself, they ended amicably enough, without any agreement being reached. --Another berean (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Cessationist Section

I removed the cessationist section because the Assemblies at a local level are "autonomous" and to say that every assembly in the world is cessationist denies this. [Edit added by 97.116.22.157 on 14:06, 12 July 2011]

• Rather than removing that section, wouldn't it be better to clarify it? Cessationalism WAS overwhelmingly the stance of Brethren assemblies for many years (I was brought up Brethren and I know what I'm talking about). It's in my lifetime that that has changed somewhat - a few assemblies in my country have embraced the charismatic movement, and many others have lapsed into a neutral position leaving their members to decide that question for themselves. There are still some assemblies, however, that would strongly discourage speaking in tongues - although from personal observation there are far fewer such assemblies than there used to be. But they still exist. So, rather than remove the section, why not re-word it to say [a] that every Brethren assembly is autonomous, [b] that cessationalism is the traditional Brethren stance, and [c] that in recent times, some assemblies have changed their views on this matter.

124.198.202.95 (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup required

What a dog's breakfast this article is! I've had a crack at cleaning it up, removing some repetitious sentences and trying to move paragraphs around to flow more logically. But I've hardly started. The whole article needs a huge clean-up. 124.198.202.95 (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

responding to your comment

I am the person that wrote to remove the cessationist question. please do not name any specific churches for respect of privacy; this includes you also david c. there is already a created message board simple gathering among the assemblies that is further deteriorating the unity the assemblies once had, spreading a lot of distorted facts about churches to ministries to people, promulgating bogus things, and is full of both foolish and unlearned questions.

do not try to post a cessationist section and try to alter the language. again the assemblies that practice open reception are autonomous; you can not say that every assembly on all six continents are cessationist because this is false. if you can post your email, cell phone, I can talk to you personally about it.

[by 97.116.22.157 on 3:18 PM , 3 August 2015]

• • The above edit, and all other edits to the article and this talk page by this IP address, were mine. Sorry I forgot to sign in. David Cannon (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• • • What I think I might do is go through the edit history and find the removed section. As I said, to call the Brethren "cessationist" is may not be universally true today, but historically it was the stance of the overwhelming majority of Brethren assemblies throughout the world. There was a charismatic flicker in some Brethren assembnlies in the early 1960s, but the leading Brethren nearly unanimously opposed it and it soon died out. It reappeared in a few places in the 1970s; in my own country my church fully embraced the Charismatic movement towards the end of the 1970s, without severing its ties with the wider Brethren movement. For many years, it stood alone - in the late 1980s, one of its elders told me, in answer to my inquiry about other Charismatic Brethren assemblies, that there were "none in my country." It is only in the last 15 years that that has really changed. But as I said, this is largely a recent development. And there are still some Brethren assemblies that would strongly discourage speaking in tongues, although not as many as there used to be. I'm talking about my country, to some extent the country near mine. I'm less familiar with what is happening in North America or other regions. SO, to cut a long story short, I think the section on cessationism should have been edited, not removed. It is a very important part of Brethren history, and in some parts of the world, may still be. I'll get around to doing it over the next week. Other present or former Brethren (or others familiar with them) from other parts of the world should also put something in about the situation in their own countries. David Cannon (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Revamped article

I've given the whole article a face-lift. The article itself was largely accurate, though sometimes selectively so, and I've sought to convey a more complete picture by adding a lot of details. I've also rearranged a number of paragraphs, and merged a number of sections that repeated information. Undoubtedly, there is more that needs to be done, but I think it's a lot better than before.

I added a section on Brethren worldwide. I covered only a few countries, because I don't know much about Brethren elsewhere. I hope somebody else can add more, in which case that section will probably need to be split off into its own article.

The other thing that needs to be considered is reducing this article to a stub, and moving most of the information in it to the Open Brethren article, and a much smaller part to the Exclusive Brethren article. Yes, they were originally one movement, but so were Catholics and Protestants. Since the 1848 schism, Open and Exclusive Brethren have had almost nothing to do with each other; they are NOT one movement, and I question the value of treating them as one. David Cannon (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Having thought more about it, you're quite right about making this article brief and historical and putting most of the practice part in the Open and Exclusive articles. In fact the same can be done for exclusives vs Taylorites to a large extent. The largest section that didn't go with Raven/Taylor were the continental brethren, who refused to get involved (probably over 1,000 meetings) and were known as Darbyites. Other factions have steadily dwindled. We should then divide the people sections accordingly. Chris55 (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Reorganization — Progress Report

I have substantially rearranged the Plymouth Brethren, Open Brethren, and Exclusive Brethren articles. The first two have been significantly cleaned up, though there are still areas that need improvement (especially with citations — please be patient with me on this). The Exclusive Brethren article still needs to be cleaned up, and part of it needs to be spun off into the separate Plymouth Brethren Christian Church article.

The list of prominent "Open" Brethren needs to be edited; many need to be moved to the Exclusive list. I will get around to this in a few days — it will take a little while to determine just what list each individual belongs in. David Cannon (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, David. I've started on the Notables list for exclusives by moving the ones I'm reasonably sure about. But I agree it is very difficult to be sure about many of those who are described as "Plymouth" brethren, as published sources make little distinction, particularly those who left soon after childhood. Chris55 (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you too, Chris. I've also moved a few more names over today. David Cannon (talk)

I'm a little worried that the notable members section has been changed to just those who are 'positive'. Ie the murderers have been removed (Adams, Haigh, etc). This seems like whitewashing to me. Malick78 (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Malik. Thank you for your query. No, it's not whitewashing. The names in question have not been removed — they have simply been moved. What's happened is that four articles — Plymouth Brethren, Open Brethren, Exclusive Brethren, and Plymouth Brethren Christian Church have been reorganized. The Plymouth Brethren article now contains material that is common to all branches and offshoots of the Plymouth Brethren tradition. Material that relates specifically to the Open or Exclusive Brethren has been moved to the relevant articles. The same goes for the "membership list" — the Open/Exclusive schism took place in 1848, so what we're trying to do is put the early Brethren "pioneers" (people that would be regarded as such by both the Opens and the Exclusives) in this this list, with others moved to the branches/offshoots they were part of. For example, Luis Palau was brought up in the Open Brethren; I doubt that he has ever set foot inside an Exclusive Brethren "hall" in his life. Therefore it makes little sense to put him any place but the "open" list. I repeat: there is NO attempt to "sanitize" these lists. Adams, BTW, is now in the "Open Brethren" list. David Cannon (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the response. I appreciate that most have been kept (Haigh was removed by an anon before your reorganisation, I see), but how did you decide, say, that Adams was Open? I have read 5 books on him and not found that info. Malick78 (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Adams was a bit of a wild guess - but, I think, an educated one. The reason I put him in with the "Opens" is that he obviously had a university degree (in medicine), and the Taylor-Group (now called the PBCC, the only numerically significant Exclusive group in the British Isles) does not allow its members to have higher education. Admittedly I have heard of a few exceptions that were somehow allowed; he MAY have been one of them, but I would think that if a specific exception was made to a general rule in his case, it would have been documented. To be brutally honest with you, if I was POV-inclined, I'd far rather he was in the Exclusive group — I used to be in the Open Brethren and I still have a lot of affection for them, so I'd dearly love to see his name off the list. But I can't argue with what were the likely facts in this case, can I. David Cannon (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Adams must have been Open, but not because of his university degree (he could have been a non-Raven-Taylor Exclusive), but because it says in his article, "He left £500 in his will to Marine Hall, his local Brethren congregation. (Cullen, p. 554)". Marine Hall is an Open Brethren assembly at 85 Seaside, Eastbourne BN22 7NL. -- Schneid9 (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation! David Cannon (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that seems a reasonable assumption (or at least it means he finished up being in the Open Brethren). Let's leave him there then. What about John George Haigh? Any ideas which he was in?Malick78 (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Haigh. But let's try to find out. His article says his parents' sect "advocated austere lifestyles" — to me that sounds Exclusive, although at least one (minority) stream among the Opens has tended in that direction too, so I wouldn't leap to conclusions about that one. If no specific information comes to light, perhaps we could put him back in the "Plymouth" list. (I wasn't the one who removed his name, by the way, and I don't know who did). David Cannon (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah! I've just found something on this website, claiming Haigh was Exclusive. It's run by Laurie Moffitt, a defector from the Exclusives. So I'll put his name in the Exclusive list, with this reference. David Cannon (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That page by Moffitt uses tweaked WP info from Haigh's page, so isn't reliable I fear (or rather, we can't quote ourselves). Btw, I know you didn't remove the info - it was an anon, I think, a while back. Malick78 (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I know Moffitt uses the WP article (probably an earlier version of it). But I've been following his blog for a long time and I don't think he'd "expose" someone as an Exclusive if he wasn't very sure about it. Within the ex-EB community, he has a reputation for accurate reporting. But you are right —it's not empirical evidence. I will continue to look for more sources! And that may indeed mean that he will need to be reclassified. David Cannon (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Reorganized - part one

I have substantially reorganized the Plymouth Brethren, Exclusive Brethren, and Open Brethren articles. A great deal of information in the Plymouth Brethren article that pertains to only one of the two major streams of Brethrenism has been moved to the relevant articles and merged with existing information. Undoubtedly, all three are still messy, and require cleanup. It's now 2.30 AM where I am, so I'm going to bed, but will get around to it within the next 24 hours. Please bear with me, everybody! David Cannon (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that there was needless repetition in the three articles, I'm not sure I agree with reducing the Plymouth Brethren article to a stub. In your comment above you suggested that Open and Exclusive Brethren had almost nothing to do with each other since 1848. In the version as it now stands you even have J N Darby in the list of Open Brethren! Please discuss major changes on this page before being quite so hasty.

As a number of contributors have pointed out, the Open Brethren have largely held to much of Darby's distinctive theology and there is little difference there unlike ecclesiology where there are major differences, though the approach to clericalism is similar. So to move the whole theology section is inappropriate.

Clearly the Open Brethren are far more numerous (though largely invisible) and do not generally own the "Plymouth" tag, even though ironically it was that assembly that the exclusives broke away from. And the recent resurrection of the tag by the PBCC raises interesting issues. To this extent I support it. But I'm not sure where you're going. Chris55 (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your imput, Chris. What I am trying to do is streamline all three articles so that they are focused on their main subject. This article should contain information relavent to both branches of the movement. Undoubtedly I have removed some things that need to be put back in. Also, as I said, there's still a lot of cleaning up left to do. I have yet to clean up the "lists". I'll start tonight; it will probably take a few days.

In the interests of full disclosure : I was brought up in the Open Brethren of New Zealand, and am VERY familiar with their history and practices in my part of the world. I am aware, however, that Brethren in different countries (and sometimes within countries) have taken on peculiar characteristics, so some statements are not universally applicable. I hope that people in the know from other parts of the world will expand the "international" section, which may then need to be spun off into a separate article if it gets big enough - as I hope it does.

One of the quirks of New Zealand (along with Australia and the UK) is that the PBCC is the ONLY significant "Exclusive" Brethren group and is almost always referred to in the media as the "Exclusive Brethren." To a Kiwi, "Exclusive Brethren" means only one thing. I understand that in North America, most Exclusive Brethren have nothing to do with the PBCC. That needs to be made clear.

I agree that this article should not be reduced to a stub, as you put it. They have a shared history from 1827 to 1848 (longer, in some countries - in New Zealand the schism did not come into effect until the 1860s). I agree that there is a high degree of shared theology too. I think some paragraphs outlining the differences between the two major streams need to be added.

Another problem that I see is that all three articles were full of POV - some of which I agreed with and some of which I disagreed with. But POV doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Having been brought up Brethren, and still having a high degree of affection for them, I do have certain feelings about this subject. That's probabliy why I am a bit sensitive to the lumping together of Open and Exclusive Brethren - most of the former consider the latter (PBCC anyway) to be a cult - a view I share, although I'm trying hard not to let that influence the articles in any way.

Anyway, I'd be grateful if you'd let me clean up a bit more (which will include putting a few things back in the orginal article). Undobtedly other people will make contributions too - all three articles are still far from satisfactory. But as one who knows (one part of) the Brethren well, I will insist that the lumping together of both Open and Exclusive Brethren in one huge article had to be rearranged. Ignoring the schism of 1848 is akin to ignoring the Reformation in Catholic/Protestant relations.

Another thing that needs to be done is to add the sources for the extra information I've added. Please bear with me over the next few days (I don't earn a living on Wikipedia, you know) :-)

One other point : I'm a bit mystified by your claim that the Open Brethren are "largely invisible." Although most of them do not flaunt tne Brethren label, they are far from invisible. They are active missionary endeavours, conduct evangelistic crusades, and (at least in my country) play a disproportionate role in interdenominational endeavours. They run camps, seminaries, and correspondence courses for believers and unbelievers alike. It's the Exclusives that are "largely invisible" - I've never heard of them conducting crusades, sending missionaries, or being invloved with anything other than negative brushes with the media. David Cannon (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

David, I'm happy for you to continue your cleanup. As the later comment to the section above indicates, my first comments were rather hasty and I can see the value in the change. It makes no sense at all to try and describe the practices of open brethren and PBCC in the same article. Sure they have a common history, but they've diverged so significantly that more time is spend making distinctions than describing what is common. I spent my childhood in what one might call the "moderate exclusives" but worshipped for several years at open brethren meetings (including Bethesda Chapel in Bristol) so I can see both differences and similarities. Personally most of my contributions have been historical as I don't have up to date experience.

There are terminology issues: do open brethren acknowledge Plymouth and have they at all since the division? I see from a census of churches in London in 1886] that under "mission halls" they have two categories: brethren and open brethren. (That limited survey shows the open brethren at half the strength of 'brethren'.) "Christian Brethren" is still I believe more commonly used in Britain, though other terms have been widely used in other places. So this is another value in putting more in the Open Brethren section. But it will be difficult to split up the "Notable Brethren" list sensibly other than putting the 19th century in one list together; assuming this section is of any value. (Should Philip Gosse be included under Open or Exclusive? I eventually discovered that he had no contact with either side in later life after the division.)

The invisibility I referred to arises from the lack of any central organization to disseminate authoritative information about brethren and to represent their views in other bodies. It is for example almost impossible to estimate how many brethren there are in the world. Not a lot by the standards of most churches, but significant. Their influence (and visibility) comes almost entirely from individuals. I'm not criticizing them for that: it's their choice. (And to some extent justifies the notable list.) But it makes it harder to produce a sensible article. Chris55 (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris. Yes, I agree with you about putting the 19th century list together, as Exclusives and Opens alike would regard those men, or most of them anyway, as part of their shared history. Even Darby is still acknowledged (though not often quoted) in Open circles, especially the ones that still emphasize dispensationalism. The more radical "progressive" assemblies which have, in some cases, put dispensationalism on the back burner or dropped it altogether, may not be so ready to acknowledge him: I have met plenty of younger Brethren who don't even know that such a person ever existed. But in conservative Open circles, yes, he is still acknowledged.

As for statistics : there are a number of issues which exacerbate the problem of gathering statistics. Here are just a few of them :

[1] What is a Brethren assembly, and what isn't? As you know, the Brethren are not a traditional "denomination" but a set of overlapping networks. Just in New Zealand: Not every Brethren assembly belongs to every Brethren network, and many assemblies belong to more than one of them. ** These networks ALSO include some churches which have no identifiable "Brethren" history. I'm thinking, for example, of a church called "Shore Community Church", which is within walking distance of where I live. It was founded as an independent church by people from a variety of backgrounds, SOME of them Brethren; its style of worship is NOT recognizably Brethren (but the same could be said these days for many assemblies that DO call themselves Brethren); it is led by a group of Elders (which IS a Brethren concept); they have a Pastor, but he is simply one of the elders and differs from his fellow-elders only in being salaried to serve full-time. They consider themselves to be a totally independent, nondenominational church. Now, get this — their Pastor is on the leadership team of one of the Brethren networks, according to that network's website. Does that make SCC a Brethren assembly, de facto??? Ask my Brethren friends, and they'll answer: "Does it really matter?" Well, in terms of fellowship, of course it doesn't. In terms of statistics, however, it does — but as you know, statistics are of little interest to most Brethren. What I just said about SCC can also be said about Auckland Bible Church, and an number of others I'm familiar with.

[2] There are some assemblies that consider themselves "Brethren" but don't seem to be linked to any known Brethren network. Should they be counted as Brethren, statistically?

[3] In some countries, including New Zealand, the religious question in the national census is optional. MANY people are reluctant to state their religious affiliation, so it's not much help.

[4] What about the Assemblies Jehovah Shammah of India? They have some 300,000 adults and children affiliated to them. They are the product of the work of an evangelist named Bakht Singh, who was NOT officially connected with the Brethren but was strongly influenced by their ideas. His assemblies are organized on Brethren lines and follow a very Brethren-style of worship (with one major difference : they have always allowed women to participate audibly in worship, which until very recently was rare in Brethren circles). Are they "Brethren"? As I said, Bakht Singh was not officially associated with the Brethren. The AJS are officially separate from the Indian Brethren, and are registered with the Indian government separately. BUT most Indian Brethren preachers and writers consider the AJS to be "Brethren" and publicly acknowledge them as such, and most of the international links of the AJS are with Brethren. So, does that make them "Brethren?" As I said, most Brethren acknowledge hem as such, but do THEY define themselves as such? And remember, this is not a few isolated assemblies on the fringe — it's a 300,000 strong network. IF counted, they comprise 40 percent of all Brethren in India and 10-20 percent of all Brethren worldwide, so including or omitting them makes quite a big difference.

Now, your other question : It's complicated! As I understand it, most Open Brethren in North America DO acknowledge "Plymouth", and I've dealt with American Brethren who describe themselves as such. The PBCC is not very numerous in North America; in fact, other Exclusive Brethren groups are far more common there than the PBCC, so Open Brethren in that part of the world are often comfortable retaining the name. In Australia and New Zealand, there is only ONE Exclusive Brethren group : the PBCC, which has generated a huge amount of negative media coverage. I personally don't know ANY Open Brethren where I am who will use the "Plymouth" name to describe themselves. In Australia, the Open Brethren got fed up with being mistaken for PBCC and rebranded themselves as the Christian Community Churches of Australia a few years back. BTW, I've heard that mistaking PBCC for other Brethren has caused confusion in the UK, too : I read recently that in a parliamentary debate on the PBCC, Ian Paisley, Jr praised the "Plymouth Brethren" for their community work, especially among young people with the Boys Rally and Girls Rally. Those two organizations are OPEN Brethren, not PBCC — so he was obviously confused! He's far from being the only one.

Anyway, thank you so much for your encouraging comments. It'll take more work, but hopefully by the end of the week the 3 articles will look a bit better than they do now! David Cannon (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't respond to this, sorry; but I agree with most of your comments. Except perhaps the last about Ian Paisley's comments: the PBCC don't have a monopoly on the "Plymouth Brethren" tag in Britain and I don't see that they should have. Given the uncertainties which you've certainly enumerated one isn't going to get a precise designation and it's no part of WP to try and create one since the subjects don't do it.

I sympathize with your problems of renaming - the first time I did it I had problems. But many pages have a chequered history and what matters is that the history of page and talk page is accessible - including any archiving that's been done. I'll have a look at doubled links which is the other problem of these moves. Chris55 (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. Just as an aside, the Paisley comment was in the context of a parliamentary debate on the PBCC. Other MPs made very negative comments about the PBCC. Paisley responded by pointing to "their" positive social work — and he cited the Boys' and Girls' Rallies as examples. Only problem is that the Rallies have never had anything to do with the PBCC — Paisley was confused, as are many other people.David Cannon (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)