Talk:Higher Life movement

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Theodore Monod?[edit]

Does anyone know who Theodore Monod, referenced here, was? He wasn't the Dean of Canterbury in 1874 or any other time, as far as I can tell - certainly Canterbury Cathedral don't seem to think so. Shimgray 13:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Adolphe Monod, whose full name was Adolphe-Louis-Frédéric-Théodore Monod. DFH 19:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main article no longer refers to him. DFH 19:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Higher Life movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original document[edit]

Hello Anupam (talk · contribs). Thank you for the comments. In Bernie A. Van De Walle, The Heart of the Gospel: A. B. Simpson, the Fourfold Gospel, and Late Nineteenth-Century Evangelical Theology, Wipf and Stock Publishers, USA, 2009, p. 93: "Despite similarities, Simpson's sanctification doctrine included its own distinctives, not duplicating either Keswick or Holiness soteriology". The official website says: Conversion and Sanctification in the Christian & Missionary Alliance, awf.world, Brazil, 1992 : "He differed in some notable ways from the teachings of his contemporaries: he rejected the perfectionism of the Wesleyan-methodists; he did not accept the suppressionism of the Keswick movement." And "In these respects, the C&MA is distinct from the Keswick movement. The Alliance heritage is more life and work affirming. Our actions in the world do make a difference and are meaningful." Despite some influences from the Holiness movement and the Higher Life movement, the Alliance has distinct beliefs, especially because it believes in progressive sanctification. Van De Walle : p. 99: "Nevertheless, Simpson still held to a progressive understanding of sanctification, whereas Palmer believed that sanctification is received in some kind of terminal and complete form." (see also [“progressive” experience on official website]). Thanks for your help. --Nathan B2 (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nathan B2, please read WP:RS, which states that an article should consist of "all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". Your edit covertly removed the position taken by mainstream academics in reliable sources, along with those references themselves. This is unacceptable. I didn't notice that you made such a change until I saw the edit summary of User:AnomieBOT who restored the references you deleted without an edit summary. Your own references that you added state that "Often the assertion is made that Simpson held to a Keswick-type view of sanctification" and that "Simpson operates within a Keswick framework". My rewording is enough of a WP:COMPROMISE in that it acknowledges that "Albert Benjamin Simpson differed from historic Keswickian beliefs in that he believed in progressive sanctification". A minority view of one author does not warrant erasing what the plurality of academic consensus states and such behaviour also violates the aforementioned policy. If you attempt to WP:CENSOR reliably sourced information again, I will not hesitate to revert you. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anupam (talk · contribs). Some editors got it wrong. This is why the position of the official website of the organization, confirmed by other editors who are not deceived, must be clarified before the one which is not recognized by the organization. Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#"Secondary"_does_not_mean_"good" and Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#"Primary"_does_not_mean_"bad" : "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources”. Thanks for your help. --Nathan B2 (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the website of hate group (a primary source) states that they do not promote racism, that does not make it true. The very policy you cite (WP:SECONDARY) discourages the use of primary sources and instead states that "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources". Remember, WP:TRUTH, which affirms that would secondary sources state, rather than what you might perceive as "the truth" is what is included in articles. The position of the one author you added has been included in the article. That will suffice, though even still, it should probably be attributed per WP:ATT since it differs from what other sources say while at the same time acknowledging that "Often the assertion is made that Simpson held to a Keswick-type view of sanctification". Apart from this, the website you provided says nothing about not being Keswickian in theological orientation. Anupam^Talk 23:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anupam (talk · contribs). The point raised is a controversy that can be ambiguous. But in this case, it is a belief that is explicitly contradictory. Specialized literature confirms the official position of the organization. The official website says: “he did not accept the suppressionism of the Keswick movement” and Bernie A. Van De Walle, The Heart of the Gospel: A. B. Simpson, the Fourfold Gospel, and Late Nineteenth-Century Evangelical Theology, Wipf and Stock Publishers, USA, 2009, p. 93: "Despite similarities, Simpson's sanctification doctrine included its own distinctives, not duplicating either Keswick or Holiness soteriology". The majority position must therefore be explained before contradictory opinions. Thanks for your help. --Nathan B2 (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the website (a primary source) states that he "he did not accept the suppressionism of the Keswick movement". That does not make him non-Keswickian; that simply means he departs from historic Keswickian teaching. Leonard Feeney might have advocated a stricter interpretation of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus but that does not make him non-Catholic. Anyways, I can include this point in the article in the last sentence of the paragraph. Anupam^Talk 00:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anupam (talk · contribs). Bernie A. Van De Walle, The Heart of the Gospel: A. B. Simpson, the Fourfold Gospel, and Late Nineteenth-Century Evangelical Theology, Wipf and Stock Publishers, USA, 2009, p. 94 : "Other than an 1885 invitation to speak at one of their conferences, Simpson had little formal contact with the British Keswick movement". --Nathan B2 (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per WP:ATT, I've attributed the personal view of Bernie A. Van De Walle, who believes that Simpson separated from historic Keswickian theology. Since you included the quote parameter, that can be accessed through the references. Anupam^Talk 00:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anupam (talk · contribs). Wiki: Keswick movement (…) that espouses a distinct teaching on the doctrine of entire sanctification. Simpson believed in progressive sanctification”. The link with the subject is weak. Many publishers see the beliefs as part of the holiness movement (George Thomas Kurian, Mark A. Lamport, Encyclopedia of Christianity in the United States, Volume 5, Rowman & Littlefield, USA, 2016, p. 462). This opinion should also be mentioned. For the sake of neutrality and consistency with the articles, one of the two opinions contradicting that of the organization should not be favored. Thanks for your help. --Nathan B2 (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, User:Nathan B2. The link with the subject is not weak but meets what the sources state, including those you have provided. I've included the minority opinion of the one author you cited, along with the majority view per WP:RS. What is in the article now is enough of a WP:COMPROMISE with what you wanted to be included. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We have plenty of references, including your own, that characterize Simpson and his denomination as Keswickian; you do not get to remove them because you don't like it. Anupam^Talk 00:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Either the article can read as it does now since Bernie A. Van De Walle is cited, or you can modify the sentence to state: "Albert Benjamin Simpson departed from historic Keswickian beliefs, however, in that he believed in progressive sanctification and rejected suppressionism." The references make it clear who is making the claim. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Anupam^Talk 00:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anupam (talk · contribs). 3 references confirm : Bernie A. Van De Walle quotes various authors (Gilbertson and McGraw) + Gordon T. Smith 1992 + the official website), compared to 2 references to the contrary. Thanks for your help. --Nathan B2 (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No User:Nathan B2, I don't agree with your changes. Bernie A. Van De Walle only quotes Gilbertson and McGraw, which you have not presented here. I agreed to a WP:COMPROMISE version with you. Please do not cross the line. I've added "unique distinctives" to the lede, which makes it clear that the Christian Missionary & Alliance affirms a modified form of Keswickian theology. Anupam^Talk 01:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anupam (talk · contribs). The important thing is :Simpson and the Alliance believe in progressive sanctification. And that will be correct. Thanks for your help. --Nathan B2 (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you have accepted the revision. I will leave your addition of "progressive" intact. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again User:Nathan B2 you are modifying what we agreed to. Please stop. The plurality of sources characterize the CMA as Keswickian. I've included the minority opinion. Please do not modify it further. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 01:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anupam (talk · contribs). This is to mention the influence of the holiness movement also cited in the sources. And that will be correct. Thanks for your help. --Nathan B2 (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No! This article is about the Higher Life movement and not the holiness movement. The reference I added specifically states that the CMA accepted the Keswickian view and rejected the Wesleyan-Holiness view. Please do not edit war as the recent revision is most accurate. The article about the CMA has a paragraph on how it departs from Wesleyan-Holiness doctrine. It is WP:UNDUE here. Anupam^Talk 01:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwood[edit]

Sir Stevenson Arthur Blackwood, K.C.B., general secretary of the General Post Office, is notable enough that there probably should be an article about him. He was a high-ranking civil servant and an evangelical preacher; and father of Algernon Blackwood. But he was not one of the Earls of Chichester and not even related to them. Orange Mike | Talk 01:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]