User talk:Schneid9

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Schneid9, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Behind the Exclusive Brethren. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Cirt (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Willem Ouweneel

Hi there! Thank you so much for cleaning up the Willem Ouweneel article. I produced most of it be translating electronically from the Dutch Wikipedia; my ignorance of Dutch made me unsure how to correct some of the machine's errors, so I'm very grateful for your input.

I'm curious about one thing. This source (which appears to be what the original PBCC article was based on) identifies him as Open Brethren. You have identified him as Exclusive Brethren. I'm confused now. My understanding of Exclusive Brethren (at least from where I am, in New Zealand) is that they are extremely insular. Ouweneel's lack of inhibition about working and worshipping with non-Brethren Christians — and his endorsement of the Charismatic movement — sounds totally out of character for the Exclusives, or at least what I understand of them. Among the Open Brethren, on the other hand, there are several streams, some of which I know to be receptive to that, so I took it for granted that he must be an Open.

I also notice that the German Wikipedia says that he was an Exclusive, but has moved to a more Open position. Admittedly, I got that via an electronic translation —I don't know for sure whether it's correct.

Perhaps you have access to sources in Dutch or German? If so, could you please [a] add them as citations to the article, [b] add a bit more clarification in the article, and [c] — if you have time —please let me know a bit more? (I'm eager to learn). Thanks! David Cannon (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I've just found this interview with him — at the bottom of page 5 he mentions that his own assembly merged with an Open one. He says the combined assembly has 7 elders — 4 from his old ("closed") group and 3 from the "open" group, but that their origins are not a divisive factor among them. I think that partially answers my question — but only partially. From what he says (IF my electronic translator is reliable!) it sounds as if many of the Exclusive Brethren in the Netherlands are more like the Open Brethren in many other parts of the world — interesting! David Cannon (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davidcannon, thanks for your feedback. There's a big difference between Raven-Taylor Exclusives (now PBCC) and moderate Exclusives. In the division of 1890, which was the beginning of the Raven-Taylor-Symington-Hales Brethren, most of the assemblies on the European continent sided against Raven, forming the Lowe-Continental Brethren. This group later merged with other moderate Exclusive groups like Kelly, Tunbridge Wells (UK), Grant and Glanton Brethren; the result became known as "Reunited Brethren" from 1974. This is the group Willem Ouweneel (and myself) grew up in. On the whole they are perhaps more comparable to "Tight Open Brethren" than to PBCC Exclusives, though they still reject the independence of the local assembly. In the 1990s, many "Reunited" assemblies in the Netherlands moved towards a more Open position (a development in which Willem Ouweneel played a prominent part) so that another international split occurred: The assemblies sympathizing with "Open principles" were "put out of fellowship", and they now form a very heterogeneous, only loosely connected group that is sometimes called "non-aligned assemblies". However, Ouweneel's charismatic leanings haven't been endorsed by most of these "non-aligned assemblies" either so that he is now mainly active outside the Brethren movement. – Schneid9 (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for that explanation! I was aware that there were different groups of Exclusive Brethren, but I didn't know that they differed in any major way from the PBCC that I'm fairly familiar with. I thought the differences were just the result of personality clashes — thanks for correcting me! David Cannon (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth Brethren Christian Church

Hi there! I noticed you removed a few names from the list, saying "the Raven split was only in 1890, so people who died before 1890 don't belong here". Could you please clarify — as I understand it, the PBCC claims continuity (however much other Brethren may dispute that) with Darby's group. David Cannon (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the PBCC claims continuity with Darby's group, but so does every other group of "Closed" Brethren (Reunited, Tunbridge Wells, non-Taylor Ravens etc.). Most neutral observers would probably agree that the group that has deviated most from its original Brethren roots is the PBCC (the name "PBCC" alone would make Darby turn in his grave). Besides, the introduction to the "Notable PBCC members" section says that prior to 2012 the PBCC was known as the "Raven-Taylor Exclusive Brethren". The group Darby, Deck and Wigram belonged to was never known by that name. – Schneid9 (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see, that makes sense. Thank you! David Cannon (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]