Talk:Berean Christadelphians

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Christadelphians#The Post-War period: 1945-present|The Post-War period: 1945–present]] The anchor (#The Post-War period: 1945-present) has been deleted.
[[Christadelphians#The Post-War period: 1945-present|"Central Fellowship"]] The anchor (#The Post-War period: 1945-present) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

The text of this article has been moved from the Christadelphian article, following the precedent of a separate page for Unamended Christadelphians, and because the section on Bereans needs further work to conform to wikipedia standards. RiJB (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Legitimacy

There was an article on Berean Christadelphians roughly a year ago that was written by a Berean. It was not NPOV, judged to be a recruiting piece for Bereans and deleted rather quickly. Now someone has created another article on Berean Christadelphians, but instead of being a recruiting piece for Bereans, it is a theological attack piece, and clearly not NPOV despite the shallow attempt at sourcing the piece. It was written by someone in the Central Christadelphians who is of the Nazarene, known by some as "clean flesh", theological view. This article should likewise be deleted.

This article was not written by a Nazarene, and it is not a 'theological attack piece'. It contains an overwhelming number of references and sources supporting each and every statement. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is not done I intended on challenging most of what the article claims because whoever wrote it is an historical ignoramous with a theological axe to grind. Here are a few examples:

The article begins with the false claim:

"The schism resulting in the formation of the Berean Christadelphian Fellowship took place in 1923[1] over the nature of Christ and the atonement.[2]"

This sources to The Berean Restatement. The article doesn't even bother to give a page number. But that doesn't matter because The Berean Restatement was not written in 1923. The Berean Restatement did not appear until 1960 and when it did, it was a misrepresentation of the history in an attempt to justify their existence following the reunion movements of the 1960's. Most of the source references to this article are of the same line of pseudo-documentation that when checked do not prove the claims being made.

Next, those who would become known as the Bereans did not form over a dispute on the atonement. This is what Nazarenes in Australia believe and parrot. But in fact they "withdrew fellowship" over a dispute in how the Temperance Hall ecclesia handled, or did not handle, the constabulary issue. The matter of the atonement was not initially used in their literature, but came about later when additional reasons for separation were sought for.

I have deleted the link to the Restatement, and repositioned the link to Berean Jim Philipps' article on the Bereans, in which he makes it absolutely clear that the Bereans did split on the basis of a dispute over the atonement. Here is the relevant section from his article (with my emphasis):

In 1923 the same problem broke out in the United States in the teachings of A. D. Strickler. Stickler denied that the physical nature was of itself, sin. He wrote:

"Why does he [Paul] call the evil in his flesh sin? For the simple reason that it is the cause that produces sin. In and of itself it is not sin… If human nature is a synonym for sin, and sin for human nature, it must be so in the primary meaning of the word sin. It cannot be sin as a concrete physical thing, "sin in the flesh", or sin as a metaphor, because that is human nature itself considered as a moral thing. "Out of Darkness, Into Light" pg. 84 .

And again from the same book:

"Just before Christ was nailed to the tree, he was a clean and holy altar, but immediately when he willingly took the attitude or position of the sinner to work out a symbolism, he symbolically became unclean because of the sins which he bare as the sin offering, and whose blood was sprinkled upon the Christ altar. When he arose from the dead triumphant on the third day, he was only justified from all symbolic and figurative uncleanness; but he was the same clean and holy altar that he had been before he was crucified...." "Out of Darkness, Into Light" pg. 64.

Like those before him, A. D. Strickler believed that sin can only be moral, and that atonement is only for moral transgression. He could not consider the physical principle, sin in the flesh, to be actually sinful, for as he said, that would be considering "sin in the flesh" as a moral thing.

This inevitably created another division within the body, but a different one than any before. Overwhelmingly, the United States brethren withdrew fellowship from A. D. Strickler and his followers. "The Christadelphian Magazine", and many brethren in England refused to acknowledge this withdrawal. Unwilling to fellowship either this idea or fellowship those brethren who would, a major division took place in the body. Those who fellowshipped A. D. Strickler came to be known as Central. Those who refused to fellowship him came to be known as the Bereans.

I'm sorry, but the Bereans themselves claim that their division was over the atonement. I suggest you complain to them about it if you believe they are wrong to say so. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JB what modern Bereans say ought to be irrelevant, unless you are just a partisan who doesn't know how to use the original 1923 primary-source documentation and who doesn't care about reporting accurate history. Jim Phillips is a modern convert, who came from Central, and his knowledge of documented Berean history has repeatedly been shown to be flawed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.48 (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much more could be said, and I intend to say it later when I have time to give detailed proofs from the appropriate time periods. My real recommendation though would be to delete this article, again, as it was deleted before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.50.105.130 (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 12.50.105.130. Just a comment to clarify: The article doesn't say that the Restatment was written in 1923; it says that the division happened in 1923 (and the source for that info is not the Restatement but a Beren website). Hope that clears things up a bit. --Woofboy (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Woofboy. Apparently you missed the pointn and need me to clarify things up a bit. I didn't say the article said the Restatement was written in 1923. I made the point that the Restatement was first published 37 YEARS after the division, yet the article references a 1960 document to explain a division that occurred 37 years before. That's nearly a full generation after the fact. The article needs to go back to the 1923 documents, not 1960. Reference to the Restatement plays well in the Nazarene misrepresentations the article makes, but it does not deal with what ACTUALLY happened in 1923. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.50.105.130 (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm with you. Sorry I misunderstood. Please feel free to add a suitable reference to the article, then, from 1923. --Woofboy (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr" or "bro" Thomas

The comment was made in the article that "For reasons which are unclear, many Bereans prefer (sic) to John Thomas as 'Doctor Thomas' rather than 'Brother Thomas' (as male members of the Christadephians usually are)." This practice is not peculiar to the Berean Christadelphians and is also quite common in the central fellowship and possibly other fellowships. Robert Roberts frequently referred to John Thomas as "Dr. Thomas" (for example his biography of John Thomas is titled Dr Thomas: His Life and Work Birmingham The Christadelphian 1873) or simply "the Doctor". The Christadelphian magazine referred to John Thomas as "the Doctor" over 2,000 times between 1864 and 2000 and several editors including John Carter, L.G. Sargent and Alfred Nicholls referred to him in this way.

The comment could be made of Christadelphians in general that "many Christadelphians refer to John Thomas as 'Doctor Thomas' rather than 'Brother Thomas'" so it would therefore be misleading to suggest that Bereans are peculiar in this practice. I will therefore remove the comment from the article. Taiwan Girl (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment did not identify this practice as peculiar to the Bereans. I said specifically 'The Berean attitude to the writings of John Thomas and Robert Roberts is almost unique, though shared by some in the Unamended fellowship, and a very few in the Central fellowship'. Your reference to the Christadelphian magazine prove how uncommon it is in the Central fellowship (2,000 sounds like a big number until you divide it by 150 years, and then all of a sudden it's only 13 times a year, which is once a month). --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over the same period The Christadelphian used the term "Dr Thomas" more than 10,000 times, "Dr John Thomas" a further 300 times and "the Doctor" over 2,000 times. Using your maths that makes it an extremely regular occurrence, on average more than 6 times in every issue of the magazine. This would seem to establish this as a common practice in the magazine which is probably also a good indicator that it was common practice in the central fellowship and the broader Christadelphian community over the same period. Taiwan Girl (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not providing evidence of current practice in the Central fellowship. Given that most of those quotes from The Christadelphian are confined to around 1864-1930, you're misrepresenting the data considerably. The issue is current practice in the Central Fellowship. From 1980 to 2000, the term 'Dr Thomas' is found only 8 times a year, which is even less than once a month. Even that statistic is biased by the fact that Volume 135 contains 41 references, almost all of which are contained in a series of articles written by a single author and are therefore not representative of a cross section of contributors to the magazine. Removing that outlier, the statistic drops even further.

In that same volume, we find the following pertinent letter:

It bothers me that some Christadelphian commentators insist on calling John Thomas ‘Dr. Thomas’ rather than ‘Brother Thomas’. A case in point is the article “The Writing of Elpis Israel” (Oct., page 376).

. Vol. 135: The Christadelphian : Volume 135. 2001, c1998. The Christadelphian, volume 135. (electronic ed.) (135:472). Birmingham: Christadelphian Magazine & Publishing Association.

The author of that letter makes it clear that some commentators insist on the usage 'Dr. Thomas', and cites the very article to which I've referred. The article is demonstrably unrepresentative of the previous 20 years of the magazine's references to John Thomas, and this particular reader noticed it. This is evidence for current practice, and it contradicts your claim. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis of the 12,000 references in The Christadelphian to "Dr Thomas" or "the Doctor" may indicate that references to John Thomas are in decline, but this does not mean that the practice of referring to him as "Dr" has ended. A dissenting voice in one letter to the editor is no indication of a major change in the practice. My comment referred to a practice supported by several editors, including John Carter, L.G. Sargent and Alfred Nicholls, over a long period. You would have to produce more than one dissenting letter to show a substantial change in attitudes. You also need to note that we are discussing only one Christadelphian magazine and that others (including Logos) could be quoted to demonstrate a continuing practice of referring to John Thomas as "Dr Thomas". Taiwan Girl (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TG, I don't know what it is like in your tiny neck of the woods, but in the ecclesias I've visited over the world, I've only run into one that uses Dr rather than brother. Your reference is placed here just to cause friction rather than enlighten.Cdelph (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no 'may' about it. I've demonstrated a massive decline, and I've also demonstrated that you are (once more), misrepresenting your sources. The letter was was merely corroborating the dearth of references to John Thomas as 'Dr Thomas' between 1980 and 2000, and you've tried to avoid the fact that it says 'some commentators insist on the usage 'Dr Thomas, contrary to your claims. I provided plenty of evidence demonstrating a substantial change of practice. Your list of editors is irrelevant because an editor alone is not representative of the Christadelphian community as a whole, whereas the magazine itself is far more representative. You're not dealing with the actual evidence, and you've misrepresnted it.

Using the Logoos magazine won't prove anything because it is far less representative of the Christadelphian community than the Christadelphian magazine, always was, and cannot possibly be said to be representative of current practices of the Christadelphian community. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Statement by a Berean Christadelphian on an online discussion forum"

In my opinion statements made on online discussion forums are anecdotal and not authoritative. If the statements cannot be substantiated by references to standard authoritative Berean Christadelphian works specifically on the subject under consideration they should not be used. I will therefore remove the unsubstantiated comments from the article. Taiwan Girl (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The key phrase here is 'In my opinion'. I'm sorry, but this article is not subject to the whims of your personal opinion. Either contribute constructively, or stay out of it. You've already been reprimanded and corrected over your vandalism of the Christadelphian page. I will not hesitate to correct and reprimand you if you try vandalising this one. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not simply my opinion. I was actually quoting your words which were posted on the Christadelphians talk page where you said references needed to be from "an authoritative Christadelphian work specifically on" the subject. Applying your rule to this article means that references need to be from "an authoritative Berean Christadelphian work specifically on the subject". The 'reprimand' and 'correction' on the Christadelphian talk page was by you - and therefore carries no weight or credibility with me. To call a legitimate edit 'vandalism' is mere childishness. Taiwan Girl (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so now you're changing your mind, and suddenly it's not 'your opinion'. As it happens, I've edited the article and contributed a considerable number of authoritative references in order to substantiate it (a number of which you have attempted to delete), so it's clear that I'm the one contributing to this article's quality whilst you're still involved in vandalism. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't change my mind. I was affirming my agreement with you that references need to be from authoritative sources. In order to improve the quality of articles it would help if you avoided emotive language and criticisms of a personal nature, and confined yourself to the accuracy of the material. Taiwan Girl (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any 'emotive arguments', and I'm the one providing copious accurate detail (all correctly referenced), while you attempt to remove not only the material I write but also the references I cite. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Method of Biblical interpretation"

The article contains a paragraph which comments on the Berean Christadelphians' method of Biblical interpretation. However, no attempt is made to show how this method differs from Christadelphianism in general. The same comment could be made of Christadelphians in the central fellowship and other subgroups. It is not peculiar to Berean Christadelphians. If the comment could be substantiated and authoritative references cited then it might be appropriate to make it in the article on Christadelphians. For the reasons given I will remove it from this article. Taiwan Girl (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not represented as peculiar to the Bereans, but as characteristic of the Bereans. Therefore it stays. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the Berean Christadelphian method of Biblical interpretation is not peculiar to them, and does not distinguish them from Christadelphiansim in general, then there is no point in commenting on it in this article, considering the section begins by saying "Over time the Bereans have developed a culture and a set of doctrines which differentiate them radically from mainstream Christadelphians. (my emphasis). The comment therefore was represented as peculiar to Berean Christadelphians or "radically" differentiated from "mainstream Christadelphians". My correction therefore stands. Taiwan Girl (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this article is to describe the Berean Fellowship. Sometimes this involves differentiating them from other fellowships, sometimes it doesn't. The section you removed was not represented as unique to the Bereans, and the part of the article you quote is in a completely different context. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The part I quoted was in the same section, until you split the article into smaller sections. I have therefore left it intact but edited it to clarify that this is not unique to Berean Christadelphians. Taiwan Girl (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Girl is correct. Her opinion just happens to match Wikipedia policy. Comments made on forums should not be cited as authoritative proof. Taiwan Boy is vandalizing this page to reflect his biases against the Berean Christadelphians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.48 (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "pioneers"

Several statements have been made in the article about John Thomas and the "pioneers" of Christadelphianism which require substantiation or which could also be made of Christadelphianism in general. For example: "That John Thomas was raised up by God to restore the Truth to the earth, and was chosen by God because of his unique fitness to the task". While a reference is cited (Bob Widding, "Contending for the Faith: A Command for 21st Century Saints" from the Berean Bible Journal, January 2008) references could also be cited from works published in the broader Christadelphian denomination ("central fellowship") along similar lines. For example, Robert Roberts (first editor of The Christadelphian) wrote:

"There is but one safe position, and in that we mean by the favour of God, to entrench ourselves ‘for better or for worse' viz., THE WHOLE TRUTH AS BROUGHT TO LIFE BY DR. THOMAS ... We yield not a slavish deference to the judgment of Dr. Thomas; but we rejoice to be able to see that by the grace of God, he exhumed for us the whole truth; and for this we shall stand till death or the Lord's coming end the fight" (The Christadelphian December, 1873, p. 564. His capitalised emphasis).

Robert Roberts also held to the view that John Thomas had discovered "all truth". He wrote that "to the charge of holding ‘that the knowledge of Scripture, in the writings of Dr Thomas, has reached a finality', we plead guilty." He made his view clear that "in the writings of Dr Thomas, the truth is developed as a finality, and that they are a depot of the Christian doctrine" (The Christadelphian September, 1874, pp. 408-9. My emphasis).

As these comments apply to other Christadelphians and are not peculiar to Berean Christadelphians I will remove them from the article. It may be appropriate to move them to the general article on Christadelphians. Taiwan Girl (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A comment from Robert Roberts 125 years ago does not constitute evidence that the current Central Christadelphian community as a whole (which postdates Robert Roberts), views John Thomas as he does. On the other hand, an article from a current Berean publication which professes to represent the current Berean beliefs of contemporary Bereans, is evidence that contemporary Bereans view John Thomas so. The edit stays. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Roberts was one of the most influential Christadelphians (which is evidenced by the fact that he is one of only two Christadelphians with a biography in the Wikipedia Christadelphianism category). About him Christadelphian historian Andrew Wilson wrote that "the organising ability of Robert Roberts ... gave the movement [Christadelphianism] its rules, institutions and much of its literature" (Andrew R. Wilson B.A., M.A., A.R.Hist.S., The History of the Christadelphians, 1862-1885: The Emergence of a Denomination Shalom Publications, 1997 p.399). The current Christadelphian position was influenced heavily by Roberts and no evidence has been advanced which suggests that Christadelphianism has changed since Roberts made these comments. My correction therefore stands. Taiwan Girl (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not addressing the point, which is that you didn't provide any evidence whatsoever that a comment from Robert Roberts 125 years ago constitutes evidence that the current Central Christadelphian community as a whole (which postdates Robert Roberts), views John Thomas as he does. The comment from Wilson says nothing about this either. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I provided referenced evidence that the current Christadelphian position was influenced heavily by Roberts and no evidence has been advanced which suggests that Christadelphianism has changed since Roberts made these comments. The Wikipedia articles on Christadelphians and Robert Roberts are further evidence of his influence. You would need to provide authoritative evidence that the Christadelphian view has changed. My correction therefore stands. Taiwan Girl (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this isn't good enough. You've provided no evidence that the current Christadelphian practice is what you claim. You've quoted a study which says that the Christadelphian community has historically been influenced by Robert Roberts on certain issues, none of which are the issue under discussion. Nor have you provided any evidence that the current Central Christadelphian community as a whole (which postdates Robert Roberts), views John Thomas as he did. The quote from Robert Roberts certainly did not prove that, and the quote from Wilson doesn't either. It doesn't even mention the subject, so once more you are misusing your sources. I don't need to provide any evidence that the Christdaelphian position on this subject has 'changed', because you haven't provided any evidence that this was ever the position of the community. You have made the claim that it is the view of the entire current community, so you need to substantiate that with references representative of the entire current community. To date you have failed to do this. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the uneducated public ;)

Some phrases may need explaining further. Reading through the article with a non-Christadelphian hat on, I would ask:

What does 'view of fellowship' mean?
What is the Unamended Fellowship?
What is the Central Fellowship?
What does 'nature of the flesh' mean?
Who is 'John Thomas'?
What is the difference between moral and personal transgression?
Who are the Pioneers?
Who is Robert Roberts?

I realise these are sometimes explained later on in the article. Perhaps it would be beneficial to rearrange and/or add wiki links to make this clearer. RiJB (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits. See what you think. Bear in mind that this is a religious article on a specific denomination (the details of which are linked to more than once), thus some prior knowledge is legitimately assumed. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's an improvement. Thanks. I may make some other suggestions later. RiJB (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Running edits

'Taiwan Girl', you are still making edits of parts of the article which are still being discussed in this Talk page. You will cease doing this, and start discussing the issues. Place your suggested edits here where they can be reviewed by others. If they are acceptable they will be included. This article is not your personal property, and since you have a history of acting in bad faith you will have to prove yourself. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't demand what I will or will not do. I have consistently discussed the issues. Please stop making criticisms of a personal nature and confine yourself to the actual material. To be consistent to your own demands you should also desist from editing this article while it is under discussion (or do you have one rule for me and another rule for yourself?) Taiwan Girl (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not demanding, I'm simply telling you. All the edits I made had been discussed with others previously, and all edits I made were fully referenced. When you removed edits I had made which weren't referenced, I didn't revert them, I permitted them to be removed. So the article was properly referenced. You then came along and added claims which weren't properly referenced, and I removed them just as you had removed mine. But unlike me, you didn't accept the edits, and nor did you substantiate your claims with proper references. You just reverted them. I didn't do that when you took away my unreferenced claims. So it's clear that you're the one applying the double standard, not me. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question...why do we need permission from a non-Berean to edit a Berean site?Beckatt (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "Berean site". This is Wikipedia where anyone can edit any article as long as Wikipedia policies and guidelines are adhered to. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Differences

Can I have permission to edit out many of the differences between Berean Christadelphians and Central Christadelphians. An example of a so-called difference is: "That human nature is physically defiled by sin even before personal transgression has taken place" This is in the BASF, Clause 5 "a sentence which defiled" which is the basis of fellowship at Central ecclesias.

Certain beliefs that have been attributed to the Berean Christadelphians on the article regarding flesh are commonly held within Central Christadelphians so I think a tighter edit might be required. Can I go ahead with the edit? -- Jond89 (talk 00:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First up, that's not actually in the BASF. The BASF doesn't say that human nature is 'physically defiled by sin even before personal transgression has taken place'. It does use the phrase 'a sentence which defiled', but the meaning of that clause was specifically clarified by the Cooper/Carter Addendum in Central, which stated explicitly that the defilement was of Adam's conscience ('He fell from his very good state and suffered the consequences of sin--shame, a defiled conscience and mortality'). The Bereans have always rejected the Cooper/Carter Addendum vigorously, for this very reason. This is an example of why I would like to see any alleged inaccuracies discussed here first, before edits are made in the main article.

First up, the BASF says "a sentence which defiled and became a physical law of his being, and was transmitted to all his posterity." If the sentence became a PHYSICAL law of his BEING, can you explain how this was the defilement of "Adam's conscience" since the conscience is not a physical element of the body? And how did Adam's defiled conscience get transmitted to all his posterity? Do you feel morally defiled for eating of the tree? It sounds to me like you are advocating one element of of J. J. Andrew's teachings by claiming the defilement, or moral guilt, was transmitted to Adam's descendants.

Second up, Cooper/Carter is a mixed bag and can be quoted on both sides of the issue. Third up, Cooper/Carter is an Australian document, never accepted, ratified, or even proposed for use outside of Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.48 (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth up, does the phrase "clean FLESH" mean anything? FLESH is physical and the term "clean flesh" was used to describe those who had gone astray from original Christadelphian teachings, it wasn't because Edward Turney was claiming the conscience of Adam was clean! It was because he denied sin in the FLESH is physical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.48 (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Berean Christadelphians

I live in London, Ontario, Canada, just down the street from a small building which bears the words "Berean Christadelphians". I therefore assume that this is still a place of fellowship of people identifying themselves as Berean Christadelphians. I therefore conclude that there are some Berean Christadelphians in Canada, and that the numbers of followers cited in this article need some better research and verification, since it enumerates Berean Christadelphians in the USA and other countries in such a way as to imply that there are none in other countries.JamesHAndrews (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is notoriously difficult to get numbers for these smaller groups, hence "citation needed" - the figures on the article have been reconstructed from "ecclesial intelligence" in the Berean Magazine. But I cannot see where the article uses "USA" "United States". The term "North America 200" surely includes Canada? That said.. if you can get reliable numbers to separate USA and Canada, then by all means contribute them. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated removal of referenced material

Michael Morrell, a member of the Berean Christadelphians, has repeatedly removed referenced material from this article without discussion. This is a breach of Wikipedia policy motivated by his conflict of interest and desire to suppress information on the Bereans. Michael, if you want to edit the article on that scale you need to discuss it here, and adhere to Wikipedia policy.--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Such large-scale edits undertaken without consultation are inappropriate. Any effort to prevent censorship of information, particularly by anyone with a clear conflict of interest has my complete support. UnitarianDoc (talk) 09:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Growcott link

Many of the References-and-Footnotes (should these be more distinct than they are?) mention The Purifying of the Heavenly. This link (or similar)

https://www.antipas.org/books/purifying_heavenly/purifying_heavenly.html

should appear in the article 2A00:23C7:D29D:4E01:3121:33A1:E12F:804A (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]