|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plymouth Brethren article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 200 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
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.
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
"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"
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)
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 220.127.116.11 (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.
- 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)