Talk:Plymouth Brethren/Archive 1

Too detailed?
I felt this article was becoming too much involved with differences between Exclusive and Open. I realize that such discussion is unavoidable but perhaps some it can be moved to their respective pages. Furthermore, I felt the article was organized wrong. I felt the info should funnel from broad to specific. Econmists (66.245.194.243) 23:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Cultish?
Some branches of Plymouth Brethrenism exhibit "cult-like" (in the negative sense) behavior. As a rule the Brethren are religious separatists. They tend to view the mainstream of Christendom as "defiled" by unscriptural practices and beliefs. Hence, there is a tendency among some Plymouth Brethren to close themselves off from fellowship with other Christians.

That sounds strange. I'm part of a (Plymouth) Open Brethren church in New Zealand - we're very conservative but I wouldn't say we 'close ourselves off from fellowship'...and when I say we're very conservative...there's a lot of more progressive Brethren (like myself) - often Brethren are similar to Baptists here in NZ. --NZUlysses (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Another cultish characteristic is the extreme admiration among some Brethren for the writings of John Nelson Darby, an early and influential leader of the movement. Darby was a scholar with knowledge of German, French and Italian, and over the course of his life managed to translate some or all of the scriptures into those languages. From his notes he also compiled a translation of the Bible into English, called the "New Translation." Darby himself intended his work to serve only as a study tool; however, in many Brethren assemblies the Darby translation is the preferred one for reading during worship. His copious writings, which fill over 40 volumes, are elevated by some to a status nearly equal to that of the Apostles.

One of Darby's closest associates was James Butler Stoney, who distinguished himself as a Plymouth Brethren mystic. Some of Stoney's ministry (geared to the subjective side of Christianity) led to perfectionistic tendencies among some Brethren. One of Stoney's disciples was Frederick E. Raven, a teacher who held heterodox ideas regarding the nature of Christ and of eternal life. Raven's teaching essentially denied the true humanity of Christ (Apollonarianism) and focused on a deeply mystical search for experiential eternal life. Some Brethren assemblies who followed Raven's ideas (heretofore known as "the Jims," after one of their leaders James Taylor Jr) have since become a cult in the sense of exercising tight control over the lifestyles and associations of their members. Most Brethren, however, repudiate the practices and teachings of the Raven-Taylor sect.

I think it would be fairer to say that Raven "was alleged to hold" heterodox ideas. His ministry shows that he did not deny the humanity of Christ. Horis 20:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent schism
In the early 1990's a schism developed among some exclusive Plymouth Brethren over the moderate teachings of several leaders in the Netherlands (among them publisher Henk Medema and creation scientist Willem J. Ouweneel). The "Dutch Five," as these leaders came to be known, advocated cooperation and communion with other Christians outside of Brethrenism. These more "liberal" leanings were firmly resisted by Brethren in Germany, who called upon other assemblies worldwide to separate from those associated with the Dutch leaders. Around the same time, a group of American Brethren sympathetic to the ideas of the "Dutch Five" met at Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, to draw up a manifesto calling for similarly moderate practices. These "Lake Geneva Seven," the Dutch Five and the assemblies under their sphere of influence were summarily excommunicated from world-wide Brethren fellowship. In the aftermath many who sympathized with these leaders left the Plymouth Brethren to join mainstream Christian churches.
 * Shouldn't this be on the main page? Not sure exactly where though. 'Recent developments'? This was an important schism which caused a lot of upheaval in brethren communities of  western Europe. Fenneke (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You say 'summarily excommunicated' but to be fair the separation occurred over a period of time and with due process - in some localities this might have been quicker (3 months) and elsewhere after long and patience remonstrance conclusions were arrived at that the two parties were going in divergent ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winschoter (talk • contribs) 11:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Cooperation
It should be noted that many current and former Plymouth Brethren have been at the forefront of cooperation in Christian evangelism and other forms of ecumenical ministry. Among these include biblical scholar F.F. Bruce; evangelist and Moody Church pastor Harry A. Ironside; missionary martyr Jim Elliot; and popular radio evangelist Tony Evans.

As an intriguing aside, a couple of notable celebrities who spent their formative years in Plymouth Brethren assemblies include Garrison Keillor, host of National Public Radio's "Prairie Home Companion" show; and Aleister Crowley, a major luminary of Satanism.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.1.6.2 (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2005 (UTC)


 * A few comments.
 * "in many Brethren assemblies the Darby translation is the preferred one for reading during worship" --> should read some Brethren assemblies. Most Open Brethren assemblies use the King James Version, the New International Version, or some other mainstream version.
 * Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren also grew up in Plymouth Brethren backgrounds.
 * Myles22 02:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

1990's US Open Brethren schism
First off, I have never used this feature of Wikipedia so bear with me if I make any major errors. Considering all of the discussion about splits in the brethren down through the years, I wanted to inquire (I hope this is the right place to do so) about a "schism" that took place in the Open Brethren in the mid-90's. I have only been able to find one article on this fairly major split --> http://www.ctlibrary.com/555. From this article I can gather that Stewards Foundation sued Stewards Ministries and then dropped the lawsuit. I am seeking any information on this split, specifically what the lawsuit was about, as it has had a significant impact on the Open Brethren in the US & Canada. Thanks eveyrone ShawnCuthill.com

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.107.125 (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

F E Raven
Having read, at some time, all of F E Raven's ministry I do not think that there is any basis for the suggestion that he denied the humanity of Christ. To quote on discussion recorded about 1 John 4: "J.S.A. What would you think is the force of the test given here? F.E.R. Jesus Christ come in flesh. He is not simply the Man Jesus, but Christ come in flesh. It is the advent of a divine Person. W.M. To say that about a mere man would be absurd, because he could not come in any other way than in flesh. F.E.R. Quite so. The point is faith in the pre-existence of Christ, and that He became man. J.P. The very form of the expression involves that. F.E.R. It is the truth of the incarnation. J.S.A. 'The Word became flesh.'" As for his view on eternal life the point seems to me to be that it is practical and not mystical.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.81.153 (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

What I could understand from Raven's and Coats writings is that they did not deny the humanity of Jesus Christ, but rather denied the "Eternal Sonship". I heard myself Mr. Phillip Hadad, a minister between Ravinites, saying: "When the Word became flesh, He became the Son".M Dairy (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

People or Men
A recent edit of the article substitutes the word "people" for "men" when describing who participates in the Lord's Supper service. It has been my experience that only men are allowed to participate. Women are to be silent, in accordance to scripture. If this is not the case, then the edit should stand. However, if it is the case, the edit should be retracted. If there is not any discussion of this within the week, I will be retracting the edit.The Dogfather 30 June 2005 14:11 (UTC)

Hi. I didn`t mean to be controversial. But I attended a Brethren church in Bristol, England (which is near Plymouth) where female contributions were valid, in spite of Paul`s comments. As this is the only Brethren church I have attended, I am unsure how typical or untypical this is. Incidentally, many years ago my English teacher forced me to read `Father and Son` by Edmund Gosse which is not exactly kind on the Brethren. I mention it as you were discussing famous Brethren above. Andycjp 1st July 2005.


 * I hope some others will weigh in on this topic. I have only been to two different Brethren churches and both were very specific that women were to be silent in Church.The Dogfather 1 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)

Hi, Dogfather. I am an elder in a PB assembly in Massachusetts, USA that recently encouraged women to participate in the Lord's Supper service. We based this decsion on the obvious participation by women in the meeetings of the local church in I Corinthians 11 (praying and prophesying with their heads covered...). A number of assemblies in our area permit the participation of women, while a number do not. Most assemblies in this area leave the question of head covering up to the women, though in a few assemblies, there is a significant amount of "peer pressure" if not outright teaching, to conform. The lack of uniformity clearly demonstrates the autonomy of the local assembly and the lack of a single denoninational standard. There certainly are some who through their preaching and their publishing efforts seek to establish and enforce a single standard. - S DuPlessie. October 2005.

Hello, Dogfather and others, I am a member of a Brethren church here in Michigan. There are several in the Tri-County area. Women do not participate during breaking of bread, only one of the elders will speak. As far as head covering in the following paragraph, we do cover our heads, but some do not. It is stated to do so after you are baptised, as the little girls do not. We do not believe that it is a sign for the angels, it is believed here that the woman's hair is adornment and we must reflect on the Lord and not ourselves. Also we do participate in the Lord's Supper, and we are allowed to teach Bible classes, etc. Cadjaynie 18:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Jayne May 2007.

Head covering
I belive something could be said on head covering here as it is expected that women cover their heads as a sign for the angels. I am not brethren so may have their reason wrong. I belive women are allowed to pray and break bread but not to teach, I could be wrong. --130.36.75.21 15:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Kent, UK


 * Mention should be made that women are expected to wear the head covering but it is generally accepted as truth that should be adhered to by the woman's own conscience. In some PB circles the woman can be put on discipline (ie: not allowed to break bread). Open Brethren differ on strictness. Rey


 * As per the PB, women are allowed to partake in the Lord's Supper in this respect: praying silently, reading silently, singing corporately, breaking bread and drinking from the cup. They're not given authority to stand up and request a song, or lead the congregation in prayer or open up the Scriptures to teach out loud. So it should remain as "people".Rey


 * In most assemblies, women are not allowed to pray aloud, read aloud, or preach aloud during meetings. In a few assemblies, however, this is not the case - women have the same privileges as men do. Myles22


 * In fact, some Brethren assemblies in New Zealand have women elders (church leaders) - and are completely egalitarian with no difference between men and women's roles in the church. Of all the Brethren churches I know of - I've been to 5-10 around the country - it's only a few older women who still wear head coverings, and it's certainly not enforced by the leadership.--NZUlysses (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a fairly recent development. There were a few assemblies like that in my time (20+ years ago), but it certainly wasn't the norm.  You could mention that some assemblies are that way today, but please be sure to make it very clear that historically it was not the case. David Cannon (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As a woman and a member of a "Brethren" "church" (we prefer "Christian assembly"), I do take offense to that statement. It's not a matter of woman having the same "privileges" as men. They simply have different duties- the men have the responsibility to teach in public, and the women have the responsibility to teach in the home. The Bible isn't sexist. It simply has two seperate but important roles, one assigned to men and the other given to women.


 * I grew up in an assembly, and had extensive experience with several assemblies around the US (until 25 years ago). In the 60s and early 70s it was much more common that women were expected to have their heads covered.  My friends and I used to laugh at the teeny little patch of cloth that was meant to hide a full head of "distracting" hair. As the 60s gave way to the 70s, and clothing styles changed, hair was the least of the distractions in our meetings.  One must remember that when that letter was written, women were pretty much covered from head to foot, so the hair truly was the glory of the woman.


 * In today's world, I think church elders (rightly) concentrate on less on the literal words and more on the intent of the message - Men are visual, and are easily distracted. Did I just accuse elders of being less than literal?????  I'm excommunicated. 206.53.226.235 (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)  Just logged in adding my ID.  Whiskeyricard (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you like my tongue in one's cheek remarks about the heading toppings not being coverings in that section.--Another berean (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this vanity or promotion rather than information?
The following seems to be a bit out of place in an encyclopedia article. I have moved it here for comment. Dabbler 15:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * When I put it up, I didn't mean it as vain. I was trying to show that the Plymouth Brethren are still around and on the web and embraced by (some) of the young crowd and not as an Emergent. Maybe you can help me out because I want to show that the Plymouth Brethren are still alive (in the US no less) and can be a presence online as well. Rey
 * Well why not just say that "the Brethren are operating X congregations in the US and some have also adopted the internet to promote their viewpoint, for example LINK" and put a link to your blog rather than have what reads like a self-promotional advertising blurb. Dabbler 08:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Bible Archive Brethren Blog: Reynaldo Reynoso
Maintained by Reynaldo Reynoso, the Bible Archive is a web logging portal (or a Blog which focuses on bringing the attention on Christ. With daily Biblical studies or insights from the Plymouth Brethren perspective, Rey makes it a point to put enough meat for the average reader and enough references to follow up study on your own. He sees things from the Open Brethren perspective without having any problems in analyzing the Brethren. Rey lives in New York with his wife and child. Dabbler 15:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Bible Archive: A Brethren Blog

Inaccurate?
This page seems to be fairly inaccurate. It seems that you've mixed Plymouth Brethren with another seperate unrelated sect of Christianity also sometimes known as Brethren that was started in Scotland shortly after the PB movement by a group of Scottish Christians. Several theological and structual particularities that have been assigned to the PB movement in the article are unique to one or the other movement, but not to both. It is not uncommon for the two to be confused as the beginnings of the Brethren movement are fairly obscure compared to the PB movement, while both movements are quite similar in their present state. Still, gives me faith in Wikipedia as an accurate source of info!


 * This comment is interesting but confusing. Just what in particular in the main article is not accurate about the Plymouth Brethren? You have just caused confusion by saying it is inaacurate but not specifying what is in question.I have lived my entire life within the Open Brethren and find the article quite accurate. If you can identify particular information that is incorrect, you are very welcome to edit the main article in the Wkikki tradition with proper source documentation, or at least list list the corrections here for discussion. - S DuPlessie

--

Hello!. A problem with editors from these article is: Closed Brethren are NO same people as Exclusive Brethren,and it are no same as Exclusivists. Encyclopedia Britannica says clearly there are 8(eight) branches from Brethren. And Closed/Open are NO same as Open/Closed Communion Brethren-another entirely different division-. But every reference to differences between closed and exclusives is deleted. And as usual you depends exclusively from USA sources. By example in Latin America,Open Brethren had more characteristiques similar to Closed,but no gives any role to Darby. Dispensationalism is no mentioned in the article.

--

Here's an example of inaccuracy (under History): "Despite the disparate nature of the movement, adherents to the Plymouth Brethren are often generalized into two main categories: Open Brethren and Exclusive Brethren." Such generalisation is only by the uninformed. The Exclusive Brethren, for example, whilst admiiting their ancestory in the Plymouths, would not consider themselves a category of them. Personally, I think that, unless the Plymouths continue to exist as a speatate entity (I do not know of such an organisation), this article should not try to cover both sects. (Open and Exclusive) except as a referrring link to separate articles. Without such distinction being made, Wikipedia will not be a reliable source of information on either group: it is more likely to just encourage The Edit Wars. 203.173.3.110 07:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)drw


 * Actually, the statement "adherents to the Plymouth Brethren are often generalized into two main categories" is accurate, whether the Exclusive Brethren themselves agree with it or not. Certainly the Open Brethren still use the terms open and closed assemblies. Remember, the purposes of this article is to serve as a source of information for people not familiar with the Brethren, i.e. the uninformed.  Whiskeyricard (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Women and men in the assembly
I edited the part about women speaking in the Lord's Supper meeting before I had read the comments here. I have never heard of a meeting where women are allowed to speak and still refer to them selves as an "assembly". Usually, if a church moves that far away from what the mainstream brethren are, they will call themselves "Non-denominational". If this is incorrect, please undue the part I emitted. - Andrew


 * I was raised in the Plymouth Brethren religion at Greenwood Hills Gospel Chapel in Fayetteville, PA (south central PA). We were an open assembly (yes that is what we called ourselves) and we associated with other open and "closed" assemblies in the U.S. (most on the East Coast and Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa).  Greenwood Hills is an active Camp and Conference Center for those that are interested in learning more.  Most of what I have read here is correct.  Women are not allowed to speak during the Lord's table and headcoverings must be worn.  Please go to greenwoodhills.net for it is my generation that has brough the brethren on-line.  Unfortunately the strictness and backwardness of the church has caused many young people to leave.207.59.85.190 21:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I was also raised in an Open Brethren assembly and had a few friends in the Closed.  I tried a few times to combine youth from our chapel, the closed chapel and a Baptist church in our area and each time the Closed refused, or we had to hold it as an unofficial event for them to attend.  I'm not sure what you mean by backwardness, however I find that while many of our young people leave the brethren churches, they remain within evangelical churches.  Other evangelical churches seem to have higher rates of youth who leave the Christian faith altogether.   - Andrew


 * I have observed Plymouth Brethren, was informed as to prohibitions re cell phones, radios, computers,etc. yet I find there is an official Plymouth Brethren web cite. Car phones are Kosher yet not cell? It is a most pecular sect. Numerous rules in place to make it not of this world, yet the people are earthy. Hipocracy is the coin of the realm.-joseph —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brightonbeach (talk • contribs) 01:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Hope you don't mind my butting in here, but I used to attend a Brethren Assembly - two of them, in fact, in New Zealand. In my day (over 20 years ago), most assemblies in New Zealand did not allow women to participate verbally.  There were some exceptions, such as Eden Chapel and Te Atatu Bible Chapel, both in Auckland, and Elizabeth Street Chapel, in Wellington.  Although very much in the minority, the assemblies that allowed female participation much larger than most other assemblies.  From what I have heard, the number of assemblies allowing the women to participate has proliferated in the 20 years since I left - most of the assemblies that I'm familiar with now follow that policy. Some of them even allow women to preach, and I know of one that has women elders.  (That same assembly has embraced the Charismatic movement, BTW - there are a number of them around now, too; Brian Hathaway - a prominent Charismatic leader - was proud of his Brethren credentials).  Do I approve - personally, yes.  Had such changes occurred while I was there, I might not have left and could be there still.  Of course, I'm speaking of New Zealand; I have heard that in most other countries, the brethren remain much conservative. David Cannon 15:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Most gatherings of "Brethren" assemblies tend to stick to what the Bible teaches and tries to avoid being moulded by the world. However, some are caught up by apostasy. Do I approve of women not wearing head coverings at meetings, do I approve of women pastors? The answer is, no. What does the Bible teach? The section == Women and men in the assembly == states how things ought to be. However there are no guarantees that a gathering of local believers sticks to how things ought to be.


 * I would like to note that the above assertion of holding ultimate truth is typical of many "Brethren believers" but not all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiskeyricard (talk • contribs) 18:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw and apologise for my unsigned remarks immediately before Whiskerricard's latest comment. My eyes are now more open. I came from a very pushy and authoritarian charismatic church. A major critisism I had of them is that they were not practising what they preached (eg in regards to head coverings) so how can these people tell me what to do? The Open Brethren meeting I eventually was allowed to have fellowship with seemed to be based on more solid ground. However, of course, a beret, the current fashion, isn't exactly a head or hair covering. Personally I now think it should go down to individual interpretation of scripture and convictions of the ladies in the meeting and wrong for the elders to insist on head coverings, especially if they are deluded in thinking that berets are a covering. About female pastors, well, the male shepherds of the day certainly need more feminine, compassionate, caring qualities. The so-called male shepherds I see tend to have large ego's, impose their will on others and are control freaks. It's a difficult one though as scripture to me is quite clear about these things.--Another berean (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC).

Hymnbooks
I've just mentioned Little Flock in the music heading. It may be useful to list all the various other hymnbooks commonly used among the Plymouth Brethren. DFH 19:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Brethren Archivists and Historians Network 2007 Conference
This event (BAHN 2007) is scheduled at Liverpool Hope University, 5-7 July 2007. Details and call for papers are posted here. DFH 19:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Rholton Vandalism Edits
The editions from user Rholton are absurd. Him posted introduction requested citations,and deleted it when I posted it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eliecer (talk • contribs).


 * The problem with your edits is that you are causing problems with the formatting and, in two cases, completely duplicated the artcle. Please see the message I left on your talk page.  I tried to address some of the involved formatting problems.  At any rate, when you completely duplicate the article and create lots of links that are incorrectly formatted, it doesn't create a great place to start from and leaves little choice but to revert. BigDT 21:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Some work needs to be done with regard to POV
This article makes it sound like Open Brethren and Exclusive Brethren have only minor differences. Exclusive Brethren makes it sound like the Exclusive Brethren are a cult. Open Brethren makes it sound like they are the only real Plymouth Brethren. This article posits that the Closed Brethren are something other than just another name for the Exclusive Brethren. Really, the three articles aren't much more than POV forks.


 * From reading the links on this article, I'm inclined to believe that the Open Brethren and Exclusive Brethren articles (POV problems with the latter aside) are correct and that this article has some issues. BigDT 03:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * From my own experiences in the early 1970s, there were huge differences between the Taylorite Exclusive Brethren and other Darbyite brethren groups, herein referred to as Closed Brethren. Because of the leadership scandals, some people left the Taylor meetings and joined meetings of the Glanton Brethren or Kelly Brethren, etc.  A lot of these earlier divisions among Closed Brethren were healed in the later 1970s. DFH 21:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with BigDT, it's this Plymouth Brethren article which was the most POV of the three and which also required a lot of cleanups as regards errors of fact, as well as style & format. DFH 21:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made a lot of corrections to the main overview which I hope will be acceptable. This section seems to be dealing with differences between Open and Exclusive whereas I would have thought that could be put lower down in the article with an account of the early history of Plymouth Brethren should come first as this will contain references the things which all PBs have in common. I am not much good at these mega changes so will leave that to someone else.
 * The terms Exclusive and Closed are interchangable and the variations need not really be discussed in this article since they are addressed in more detail sub Exclusive Brethren. What is of interest is the differences between Open and Exclusive both in ecclesiology and theology but also in worship styles etc as it seems clear from both Shuff and Grass that there is a wide spectrum of practice and doctrinal belief in both groups which often coincide. However I can't help thinking that a few more headings would be helpful.
 * The meeting my parents attend is an Ex Taylorite EB meeting which at one time was looking to be drawn into the Kelly Lowe Glanton group. However it is now a mix of Open/Exclusive and new Brethren and they have had to learn to get on with and learn from each other and so far it has worked. The doctrinal differences though quite significant are not crucial and make for very lively readings. The cultic differences are more marked.

Gregory Morris, St Deiniol&#39;s Library, Hawarden 12:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've just made some attempt to cleanup the history section, which was rather a spagetti junction. The reason I removed F. Roy Coad from this section is that he was much later in time than the men who started the movement. There is still much more to be done to bring this article up to Wikipedia quality standards. DFH 18:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Having changed the first paragraph in this section to list format, it should become clearer (to the experts) which of the names in the list were truly among the founders, and which should be moved to a separate section about people who contributed to its later growth. DFH 18:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Harry A. Ironside should be removed from the founders. Though he was certainly a dispensationalist he was not actually in the Plymouth Brethren, was he? DFH 19:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It was Ironside's parents that were in the Brethren, so I have deleted him from this page, and moved the external biographical link to the page for Harry A. Ironside. DFH 19:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Before I began editing this section, it had the phrase "was made prominent by" rather than "founded". This section is supposed to be about the history of the Plymouth Brethren, not an account of who made them more famous in later periods. Would someone else with more historical knowledge please check the other lesser known names in this list, and take the necessary action. DFH 19:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have done a bit more cleanup in the list, but there is still more to be done with it. DFH 20:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word assembly
Whereas the Open Brethren are usually quite content to use the word assembly to refer to their local gathering, Closed and Exclusive Brethren mostly avoid using this term. This arose out of Darby's extremely dispensational doctrinal theory of "the ruin of the Church". They prefer instead to just use the word meeting. DFH 21:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have tried to do some rewording to reflect this. "Assembly" is only used by most EBs to mean the whole church ie the Bride of Christ. Both OBs and EBs use the term "meeting".
 * Gregory Morris, St Deiniol&#39;s Library, Hawarden 17:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Assembly," "Meeting" and "Gathering" were used completely interchangeably in the Closed Brethren group in which I grew up. 70.48.71.84 22:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a part of what we refer to as an assembly and we are possibly one of the most fundamentalist groups, as we do not any follow doctrine outside of the Bible. As such, we would be considered "exclusive" (although we prefer to simply be called Christians). My home assembly is linked with many others throughout Canada, the United States, Mexico, South America, and Africa, as well as the United Kingdom and Ireland. As far as I know, no one in my group has any problem with the term "assembly".63.3.1.130 00:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Alinnisawest

US Library of Congress classification of Brethren
I recall reading an article in Journal of the (erstwhile) Christian Brethren Research Fellowship (CBRF) during the early 1970s which made reference to the US Library of Congress classification of Plymouth Brethren groups by over ten different Roman numerals. Anyone have more details? DFH 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Six of these groups are described in the New Catholic Dictionary, but with inadequate details; viz:
 * Brethren I &mdash; "formed in the United States in 1885."
 * Brethren II &mdash; "who entertain a wide variety of views"
 * Brethren III &mdash; "they represent the extreme high-church principle of the Brethren ...."
 * Brethren IV &mdash; " the result of a breach in 1890, when controversy arose regarding the subject of eternal life ...."
 * Brethren V &mdash; "formed by dissenters from Plymouth Brethren III on the question of discipline ...."
 * Brethren VI &mdash; "formed by a separation from the 4th branch in 1906 over ecclesiastical matters, neither doctrine nor practise being involved."
 * --DFH 22:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * From another source,
 * Brethren IX is a small circle that withdrew from Brethren VIII around 1949.
 * --DFH 22:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Official Hymn?
"They also sing they hymn "Man of Sorrows" quite often; it is commonly recognized as the official brethren hymn." This is patently ridiculous; This entire article needs some serious work. REY 02:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Try to keep this article focused on the Plymouth Brethren as a whole
Please aim to keep this article focused on the Plymouth Brethren as a whole, rather than on matters appertaining only to either the Open Brethren or the Exclusive Brethren. This main article is not the most appropriate place to add detailed references to the political actions of a small number of Exclusives, when the page about Exclusive Brethren now includes a stuctured section about the Politics of some of them in various countries. DFH 19:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

History
I just inserted a level three headline for Early beginnings in the History section. This is because the subsequent history is not yet included in the article, which is a significant omission. Though some details are to be found in the articles on Open Brethren and Exclusive Brethren, the History section of this article needs considerable further expansion. DFH 20:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

External links - not SPAM
Most of the linked sites in the external links section contain notable information that could be of interest to someone wishing to learn more about the Plymouth Brethren. For the most part, they are definitely not SPAM. They have been added by a number of editors over a period of time, mostly be people who have some detailed knowledge of the subject. They should not be summarily removed, least of all by an editor who has no expert knowledge of the Brethren movement and its history. DFH 16:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at the Booksellers & Publishers section which is complete with addresses and phone numbers. This is a huge spam magnet and has become a link repository which Wikipedia is not. That whole section could be deleted without losing encyclopedic information. JonHarder 00:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am going to delete the booksellers and publishers sections as spam. The links to this article need to be narrowed down to five or less! --Banana04131 00:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've tried to do so. My other concern is with the "bibliography", we have a "< references / >" section, so what's biblio for? 68.39.174.238 15:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable Members
On 19/20th February 2007 I added John Bodkin Adams, John George Haigh, and Aleister Crowley. References from publications were provided, and their own Wikipedia pages state they were at some point members during their lives. Unfortunately on February 20th user 70.112.30.244 decided 'notable members' was a synonym for 'members good for Brethren PR purposes'. This is not the case nor is it Wikipedia's policy. Articles should be neutral and balanced. These names should therefore be reposted. I will do so soon if there are no objections. Malick78 09:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I object. After browsing the articles, there is no evidence that any of the three were "PBs" as adults. rossnixon 10:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The articles on John Bodkin Adams and John George Haigh may or may not state they were adults but the publication I cited does. Therefore those two should stand. The fact that Crowley was brought up by Brethren parents is noteworthy - hence should also be mentioned in an encyclopedia entry on Brethren.Malick78 15:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This page states John George Haigh ceased attending a Brethren church at the age of 25 - http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/famous_criminal/38/home/1/John_Haigh_The_Acid_Bath_Murderer.htm


 * As for John Bodkin Adams, he regularly attended P. B. meetings with his mother up until her death when he was 44. See page 610 (amongst others), of "A Stranger in Blood: the Case Files on Doctor John Bodkin Adams", P.V. Cullen, 2006. He probably continued to attend Brethren meetings till his death since he left money to them in his will. I presume they qualify now?


 * As for Crowley, yes he rebelled at an early age but his P.B. upbringing influenced his philosophy and life course. How about a new heading - "Notable Apostates"? Would that be more appropriate?Malick78 11:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not really appropriate. This article is about PBs, not people who used to be PBs. Would you call Charles Darwin a notable Unitarian?. That article does not include a list of notables or apostates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rossnixon (talk • contribs) 00:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC).


 * The fact that two serial killers and the world's most famous occultist were at some point P. B. is highly notable since it is such a small church. This would therefore be of interest to the casual reader wishing to find out about P.B. history. I suspect those opposed to their inclusion have ulterior motives. Malick78 08:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A quick check of List of Unitarians, Universalists, and Unitarian Universalists shows that Charles Darwin had been there since the page's inception in 2002. No Unitarians have complained. Since your own example, Rossnixon, backs my case, can I assume you agree to the inclusion of John Bodkin Adams, John George Haigh and Aleister Crowley now? Malick78 08:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, Darwin was a bad example...I had assumed that he lost his religion early in life - apparently not.
 * It would not help a person, as you suggested, help a reader find out about P.B. history! None of this is PB history. If any of the three people had piano lessons as a child, would they be notable pianists?
 * I have just read the Adams article. Sounds like he would qualify as a PB. Did you describe him as a mass-murderer? I note that he was found innocent in court. Perhaps you could call him a suspected early practitioner of euthanasia instead? rossnixon 10:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there Rossnixon, "suspected early practitioner of euthanasia" would come under weasel words. He was found not-guilty but the trial was prejudiced (see article). The Home Office pathologist found 163 deaths which were suspicious - as in murder not euthanasia. Therefore I think "suspected serial killer" is more apt. Critical consensus favours this view too. But I'm glad you agree he was a member, is notable and deserves inclusion in a non-biased article:)


 * As for John George Haigh, the article (and all articles on the internet) state he was a P.B. Few bother to mention his musical talents or lack thereof. Therefore it is noteworthy too:) Malick78 10:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am uncomfortable with performing any edits on this hotly contested page, when I have no new information to add and little Wikipedia experience. However, I do see a far-from-Neutral POV in the "Notable Members" section.  It does appear to have been "cleansed", as if bad examples are not to be tolerated.
 * Why are Dr. Edward Wilson and Richard C. Mongler notable persons? I am not up-to-date on Wikipedia requirements, but a short description, link, or qualifying statement would help. All the others listed have such amplifying information.
 * On the issue of John Bodkin Adams, his membership appears to have been a significant part of the duality he lived. If John Bodkin Adams is not notable, then Arthur Rendle Short is probably not notable either.  (Since Short is best known for encouraging a famous suspected serial killer and convicted fraud to practice medicine.)
 * After browsing the articles, I find there is no evidence that Garrison Keillor was a "PB" as an adult. If that is the standard, someone please remove Keillor from the list.
 * Francis William Newman went on a mission with some PBs, but his views evolved into something outside the PB realm. I do not find that Newman was a member of the Brethren (in my limited search). Can somebody find evidence that he was a member?  Since a print encyclopedia had information about Newman, I suppose he qualifies as Notable.
 * I find that Jim Elliot died while on a mission with some Brethren, but I do not find that he attended assembly or claimed to be a part of Plymouth Brethren.
 * Perhaps the name "Edward Alexander Crowley", the name that Aleister Crowley's parents gave him, would better serve on the list of notables? Crowley's Wikipedia entry explains the contrary effect his parent's Brethren teachings had on him.

I hope my comments do not lead anyone to vandalize other Wikipedia entries in an attempt to support the cleansing of the PB Notables. 69.30.97.248 00:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree: there are serious POV issues on this page. Most recently member 20.133.0.14 removed John Bodkin Adams and John George Haigh, giving misleading information as to their removal. Presumably he did this without reading the talk page where their inclusion was previously discussed. Adams was a PB all his life (not just his parents). Haigh was a PB until 25, by which time he had already started criminal activity. These two should remain. Aleister Crowley would also be a valid inclusion, since his PB upbringing affected his later beliefs. I will add Adams and Haigh shortly, and Crowley if people accept the need to be objective (though I have little hope of that on this page). Malick78 14:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not Crowley. There is nothing in common between PB and his later beliefs. rossnixon 01:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I confess I was the person who removed John Bodkin Adams and John George Haigh, and it is true I hadnt consulted this talk place. It was a reaction to the fact that Vine, Newberry and oher notable Brethren were not there and to my horror serial killers were there. In fact I felt that all the sections had an anti Brethren slant. Looking in the dictionary, notable means distinguished ie noble or dignified in appearance or behavior. Being a suspected or real serial killer or an occultist can hardly be construed dignified behavior. [BWG]
 * "Notable" has a wider meaning than that. It can mean "famous" or "worthy of note". This includes being well-known, whether for good or bad actions etc. (e.g. Clinton is a notable rapist.) rossnixon 02:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed the "Notorious people associated.." sub-section since it is very obviously a biased point of view being intoduced to demote in importance people who in fact were full members. I would also like to bring up Crowley again: ross says "There is nothing in common between PB and his later beliefs" - but that is neither here nor there - his beliefs were a reaction to being brought up in a fundermentalist atmosphere. Therefore the relationship is relevant. Furthermore, we now have members uncontroversially included in the list such as Jim McCotter and Garrison Keillor, who left PB early in their life. This establishes a precedent for the inclusion of Crowley, who also left early in his life. Can we include him now?
 * Oh, and John George Haigh returns - he was PB till he was 25, as stated earlier in this discussion page. Malick78 09:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed Haigh, and put Adams back into Notorious. Firstly, there is no such thing as a member or full-member: there is no membership, just attendance. I will check out McCotter and Keillor. It is sheer speculation (original research) that Crowley was reacting to his PB upbringing, it may have been something else in his upbringing. rossnixon 02:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Finally, whether Crowley reacted or not... bla, bla, bla... to his PB upbringing, the fact is he was raised as PB - and others included in the list also fall under this category. Basically Ross, you are adding and removing based on PB propoganda criteria - anything that is good for PB stays, all else is whitewashed. This site is for those who want to find out info with a NPOV - please try to respect them and the integrity of the site. Malick78 10:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry ross but why have you removed Haigh? You give no reasons. Nor a reason for putting back the 'notorious' section. Please give reasons for this - so others can check you are not just acting on a biased whim - which I suspect you are. Also as I said above, why separate 'notorious' people? Why are they not just normal members? And you say there are no 'members' - well all the other contributers to the page are happy with the term - are you suggesting changing it completely or was that just a lapse on your part?
 * Oh, I answered on my talk page as you posted it there before I saw it here. In summary: I'm happy for them to be listed if their notoriety was achieved as PBs. Would you call Richard Dawkins a notable Anglican? rossnixon 02:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned that controversial religious or secular characters can get to be added to the Notable Members section. Being born and raised in a 'Brethren' family does not constitute membership. Fortunately, Adolf Hitler did not have parents who fellowshipped with the Brethren for a few years, as no doubt, this would have been picked up by some people and added to the Members section. If the balance is lost in this section I will start adding further renowned 19th Century Men of God from this movement which are yet to be listed. I was also unhappy that McCotter and Keillor were added. Ask the vast majority of 'Brethren' folk whether or not they knew Keillor and McCotter once associated with the Brethren, I believe the answer would be a categorical no. In fact, personally, I hadnt even heard of these names until reading them here. Also as no proof has been offered that Keillor and some others on the list were ever in fellowship I believe they should be removed from the Notable members list. [BWG] 23 May 2007

Malick78 18:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ross asked "Would you call Richard Dawkins a notable Anglican? ". Well, no, but that's because a list of a major denomination like Anglicanism is long enough without including apostates. If however we are talking about minorities like PBs, then I think it's worth mentioning more fleeting believers. Take a look at List of Scientologists for example - here they mention those who have left the religion (see the page's subsection - "Former Scientologists"). Furthermore, the List of Scientologist celebrities mentions those who were raised Catholic... before taking the faith. So, why can't we have such a free definition here? Or is it just the unsavoury nature of Adams et al that you object to (while I see the inoffensive Keillor is still here!).
 * I just checked Keillor, as promised earlier. Looks like he was only a PB till about 18. That means he is not notable as a PB. Will delete. rossnixon 01:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked some sites about Cotter and his organization. His beliefs are indistinguishable from PB theology. On the Great_Commission_Association_of_Churches sidebar, it says origins Plymouth Brethren. Hard to decide if he belongs or not. rossnixon 02:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Ross; you seem to have deleted Keillor mainly because I was teasing you about your double standards - I'm not sure though that there really was a general consensus on the criteria that you gave for his removal. Judging by those included in the list - most people seem quite happy for people who were brought up PB but left it to be cited. I would therefore recommend Keillor's readmittance to the PB hall of fame, until you can show that a general consensus exists that he and his ilk should be removed. :) Malick78 13:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There have only been 3(?) people discussing the criteria - not enough for consensus. Need to find a similar article to compare. rossnixon 01:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Except of course that consensus to include those who grew up PB is implied by the fact that three people still on the list are said to have 'been'/'grown up' as PB. That doesn't include Keillor and Crowley, who others would like to be included. This therefore suggests a certain standard that should be respected. You however removed Keillor on your own initiative having decided he was unsuitable. Maybe all who have been PB should be included with caveats as to how long they were PB and when in their lifetime? Then the reader will decide for themselves how relevant they are. This would seem to be the fairest way would it not?
 * If you would like to compare other pages, I suggest List of Scientologists and List of Unitarians, Universalists, and Unitarian Universalists (which, as you remember Ross, even includes Charles Darwin as a believer without controversy!). The former even has a section for former members. To preempt a repeat of your 'Anglican' argument - the pages of larger denomination's are not appropriate since they do not have the space to include general believers, let alone more fleeting members of their faith.
 * So, now I have shown consensus to include apostates is implied, and that other pages uncontroversially include such people, can we replace Keillor and include Crowley. With caveats:)Malick78 08:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Crowley was never a member. He attended meetings in his youth but was never in assembly fellowship. If his name is added, a note ought to be made that he was never in assembly fellowship and his only association was that he had a Brethren upbringing. [BWG] 1 June 07

I agree with Ross with the removal of Crowley. For consistency, I think there are a couple of other names which should also be removed, not because of their goodness/badness, but because they were never members. There seems to be a misunderstanding, the Plymouth Brethren is not like the Church of England where membership starts at early life. The Plymouth Brethren generally do not practise infant baptism and although young family members are brought along to meetings, they may only enter into fellowship/membership out of personal faith and after being baptised as a recognition of their faith. I hardly think Crowley ever went through Christian Baptism as an adult believer. I did once add a section called "Notorious Characters Associated with the Brethren" but this was rejected. I think Ross is being more than fair in allowing serial killers to be listed, who were members. [BWG 11 June 07


 * Would a PB child dying at the age of 5, for example, get a PB burial? I do not know the answer but if they would be, they are de facto considered PB by their community. Therefore someone who was PB as a child and changed (and especially in such a severe way (ie Crowley's extreme dislike of Christianity) - deserves inclusion - with an explanatory comment. After all, how can exact information be bad? And secondly, people keep adding Crowley independently of each other - so they obviously think he deserves inclusion.Malick78 09:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Happy news! I've found a citation confirming that Aleister Crowley was baptised PB  - so he can join the list forthwith. Malick78 14:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That is interesting, if the source is reliable (which I doubt). I thought all PBs were very opposed to infant baptism, but it appears that some Exclusive Brethren practise this. Do you know what year this would have been? And can you explain how Crowley could recollect what happened since he was only 3 months old at the time? rossnixon 02:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It would have been 1875. The source is his memoirs and though he was wont to embellish things, I see no reason to think he would make up being baptised. I think it is unlikely he really remembered it but I think we can also assume that someone in a fundamentalist religion would know for sure whether they were baptised or not. Hence the source can probably be trusted.Malick78 07:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just read up on Exclusive Brethren. The Plymouth Brethren split in 1848. The Open Brethren number about 1 million. The Exclusives number about 40,000. To say Crowley was a PB could be misleading. PB should really be used to describe the group before the split. Have a think whether it would be better to put him into the Exclusive Brethren article; or into this article with appropriate clarification. rossnixon 02:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that's a strange attitude to have - wanting to specify that Crowley was Exclusive and get rid of him to another article when no other person on the list has such a caveat. Basically this article seems to lump Exclusive and Open Brethren together so I see no reason why Crowley shouldn't be included here on the main page. Clarification is always welcome so I shall mention he was Exclusive. As for your 1 million figure for PBs - that is a very rough guess according to the source webpage and should not be seen as a definitive number.Malick78 12:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems obvious that Crowley felt his PB upbringing to be noteworthy enough to describe it quite thoroughly in his memoirs and to use it as an example of things. Garrison Keillor also writes about the "Sanctified" Brethren, and it might be useful to know that he didn't invent the Brethren as a whole for his books, but just the "Sanctified" label for an invented subsection of them. He is quick to depict the very divided state of the Brethren groups. As to Hough, it seems obvious that most stories which seek to "explain how he got that way" attempt rightly or wrongly to point to his PB upbringing as being unhelpful. To omit these names as if they had no connection or relevance to a page on a little-known religious group, in actuality for "political" reasons, seems like a bad idea. 70.48.71.84 22:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that Keillor should remain since he writes about his experiences in his book. Whiskeyricard (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I too. I might have to read up on what he has to say.--Another berean (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Listing Crowley as a famous member of Plymouth brethren is akin to listing Martin Luther as a famous Catholic. Everything this man stood for is diametrically opposed to everything Plymouth brethren stand for. The claim that he was baptized PB is factually impossible. This is because no one is ever baptized as a Plymouth brother. Plymouth brethren baptize, but do not consider this as conferring any king of membership on those they baptize. The only factual allegation you could make about this subject is that Alister Crowley was raised in a Plymouth brethren home, but rebelled against that upbringing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.153.38 (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed. Crowley was a PB and it completely affected his philosophy. He was baptised and claimed as PB by his family and community. He identified as PB. That's all enough for inclusion. There are plenty of others on the list who grew up PB and left - why do you not complain about them? Malick78 (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Alister Crowley is a very famous character but like some other characters listed, his fame does not lie in his contributions to the brethren movement. The claim appears to be true about his baptism, he came from an Exclusive Brethren branch who baptise infants. The less famous, John Nelson Darby, also was apparently only baptised as an infant. Many Exclusive families are very anti-world and can exert too strong a control over family members. Crowley's upbringing was a contributing factor to the person he became. I am more concerned about lesser known people being listed, their notability being that they were convicted of murder. Maybe these need to stay in the list just as a warning of the dangers of an Exclusive Brethren upbringing. The entry for Crowley does say he was raised as an Exclusive and is quite tame and non-judgmental. As Malick78 states, the issue of whether or not his name should be listed has been discussed before and I know its removal would be challenged by other contributors to the article. --Another berean (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't include people in Wikipedia as "a warning". I don't know if anyone apart from Malick78 wants him included. He should at least be moved to the Exclusive Brethren article. Who wants to vote on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossnixon (talk • contribs) 00:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am fairly unfamiliar to Wikipedia rules and standards. Personally I wish Crowley hadn't been brought up within the Exclusives but he was definitely famous, and seeing that other less famous characters who contributed little to nothing to the movement are also listed, then I think it would be wrong to just single out Crowley and delete his entry. From a non neutral point of view it would be good to see just a list of people who only contributed positively to the movement and known within Brethren circles, but I dont think that would be acceptable for an enyclopedia. The overall entry needs to be truthful and balanced. Personally I think the listing of murderers is worse than Crowley being there. He was certainly a very controversial character, very much a maverick, but he was never put on trial for murder. He was also a believer in personal liberty and a seeker of truth through experiment.--Another berean (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe it would be a good idea if the listed members could be seperated out to the Exclusive and Open entries. Unfortunately I dont think this would be possible for all those listed, particularly for those who became notable in the secular world. Also merely dumping the "dodgy" characters into the Exclusive entry might cause offense to some Exclusives, as the "dodgy" ones seem to belong to the Taylor-Hales group--Another berean (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Some names of the list were inserted because their parents were of Plymouth Brethren, but they themselves never were with brethren. It should be clear that brotherhood cannot be inherited. Each individual applies for it separately. It seems that many of the editors in this box do not know the nature of communion with Brethren. Attending the meetings regularily is open for all, even in exclusives meetings (exept one group) but being of the "Brethren" means being accepted between them to "Break Bread". Adams, Haigh and many others on the list used to attend the meetings with their fathers or mothers till they were adults. Many other criminals, not mentioned on the list, may had done the same, even without any relatives with brethren. This does not include that they were PB at all. But it seems that some editors consider PB as an independent church, which is not correct. For Wiki to be accurate, the list should be revised, and many name who did not participate in breaking bread should be removed. On the other hand, many notable names are missing, such as: J. B. Stoney, Fredrik William Grant and others who had influence on the history of Brethren, either positive or negative. Also I noticed that the list is neither sorted historically nor in influence respect, but alphabetically. A killer, who never had been with brethren, is put on top. Even his parents were not notable between brethren. While founders like Edward Cronin. John Darby, John Bellet come later. I hope the list will be carefully revised and sorted. M Dairy (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contributions and for joining the WP brotherhood :) I think however you are missing a few points: just because you don't like seeing a probable killer at the top, doesn't mean alphabetisation is wrong. Putting members in order of influence is impossible - who would decide it? We can't since that would be original research, which WP frowns on. There is no independent source which will have these names ordered as you wish. Furthermore, all other pages on WP go with alphabetisation - so it's standard practice.
 * Also, you say these killers and bad people didn't 'break bread'. How do you know? I fear you don't and it's just your gut feeling. If you can provide a source, however, other editors will be more than happy to edit the list accordingly. Malick78 (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You Malick78 for your kind note. I agree with you that alphabetical sorting is the most NPOV. But preferred to be with Surname. I withdraw my note about sorting, as it will in all ways be POV. You are TRUE in this area. As for the killers names, I would like to draw your attention that all references consider attendance of a meeting means membership, as they deal with PB the same as an independent church, which is not the case. Brethren have nothing called membership. There is fellowship, but membership relates in their view to all right believers in all denominations. One may be in the fellowship, and not a member, another may be a member, but not in fellowship. They believe God only knows the members, but we know and responsible for the fellowship circle. The reference for Adams says "he was a member of PB all his life". This never means he joined breaking bread. Any body can be a member in this sense, but does not include "Accepted in Fellowship". In my meeting, there are many who can be said "Members" and keep attending the meetings regularly, and share in prayers, singing and paying for the assembly work, but did not apply for fellowship, and if will do, will not be accepted for certain reasons, may be moral or doctrinal. Keeping his membership, while suspected killer prooves that he was not in the fellowship, as this contradict with the basic principles of PB, otherwise they would excommunicate him. Then he will not keep even as a member. He would be considered as a leper, who should be kept outside the camp. Not knowing these principles of PB make perplex to some between membership and fellowship. A killer cannot be prevented from attending the meetings, but prevented from fellowship. So the reference saying he was a member is not evidence that he was accepted in fellowship and became PB. I ask you: have you evidence that he joined breaking bread? If yes please show. If no please remove his name until you have this evidence. The same with Haigh. he is even not mentioned as a member, but that he was forced to attend the meetings by his mother. This is an evidence that he was not PB. I don't mind to see killers or bad people on the list. There are many bad people who were in fellowship with PB and not mentioned in the list. You can add them if they are "Notable", but if they were not accepted by their meeting, you should not include them in the list. Otherwise, they are added based on Your POV only. Thank You again for your logic discussion, and hope you got my point. M Dairy (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Weekly Remembrance Service
I think it should be noted in the latest edit to the Weekly Remembrance Service section has parts in it that, while typical, are not universal. I know because I go to a Plymouth Brethren church that doesn't practice quite that way. It is similar, but not the same. I'm not sure how to word it, though, to specify that. Admiral Memo 00:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tioeliecer's bad edits
Recently Tioeliecer has made radical changes which are to the severe detriment of the page: they are badly structured, unclear and read badly, lack citations and even repeat the 'Influence' section. Tioeliecer, please tell us of your proposed changes beforehand so we can advise you how to make them better. Malick78 09:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

o.k. malick
write the article as you want, but respect the link to reach out trust, it signals the clear differences between closed and exclusive brethren. there are 3 no 2 types from p.b. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tioeliecer (talk • contribs)
 * I believe that this is the article you are referring to, specifically, this passage:

More recently there was a split in the 'exclusive assemblies'. Basically, the more legalistic ones still claim the name "exclusive" and the more liberal ones either attend open meetings or ones which are called simply "closed" meetings.
 * Do you know what differences there are between closed and exclusive Brethren? --BigDT 00:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * NO! I`m no talking on this particular sentence.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tioeliecer (talk • contribs) 14:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Invisible?
"Brethren emphasize the Christian doctrine of the one invisible Church made up of all believers". Erm, interesting concept but shouldn't it be 'indivisible'?Malick78 13:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is probably correct. "Invisible" as in "you can't go and see them all in one place". Some of the church is in heaven for starters. rossnixon 00:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the brethren do not use the expression "Visible and Invisible Church". It may be misleading due to using it in some churches with a meaning which the brethren consider not biblical. Some of the brethren use the expression "Invisible Church" in another meaning. There is one church, not one visible, and another invisible. The church was visible to the world when all Christians were in their right position in the apostles days. But when merged with the world, the Christendom became the visible body, and the true church became invisible except to God, Who knows the true believers. The church became "a treasure hidden in a field" and not recognized by the world. the people could see "Christianity", but not "The Church of God". You can return to F. W. Grant: "A Divine Movement" (available on internet) where he uses this expression in this meaning. He considers the Brethren Movement as a work to make the church again "Visible".M Dairy (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving list of Members
I have moved the list of members to the end of the article as that is the appropriate place for appendix-like information. the list also concludes the article well, and that is preferable to having it interrupt the article further up. 0nlyth3truth 19:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ed MCully, Peter Fleming
I have added these two men to the list of notable members as they have have been in books, had biographies written about them (at least Fleming), and have had a movie made about the events leading up to their deaths.0nlyth3truth 19:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Openess paragraph

 * ''Openness
 * Some "Open Brethren" assemblies, allow any believer to participate in the Lord's Supper. In contrast some "Closed Brethren" assemblies do not permit outsiders of any sort. It is common practice for the visitor to carry a 'Letter of Commendation' from the leaders of their local meeting to inform the saints at the receiving meeting that they are in fellowship at the former locality and can be allowed to fully participate in all services from the point of their arrival. It is customary to send one of these letters even when only one service will be attended, and individuals often take these letters on holiday when they will be away from their local meeting and wish to attend another.''

First, this paragraph exhibits a problem that runs through the entire article: using inside terminology. The term "saints" or "in fellowship" will not be understood by the vast majority of people who might read this. I also have a problem with "breaking bread" and "Lord's Supper" prior to the section that explains those terms. One of the reasons that many PB churches have become isolated is that they tend to speak in their own language and judge those who don't as "of the world". I doubt Jesus Christ used the same language when hanging with tax collectors as he did in the temple.

Second, does a paragraph about "Letters of Commendation" really need to be included in an article about the general category of this (non)denomination? It may be of critical importance to PBs, but the rest of Christendom couldn't care less.


 * But the article is about the PBs, mot about the rest of Christendom. I too am an ex-PB, and yes, I think it does belong.  It needs to be qualified, however: even when I was among them, the use of the letter of commendation was far from universal, and since I left, I have occasionally visited Brethren services in various locations without such a letter - and it hasn't caused me any problems.  I can't write that, however, as that would constitute "original research". David Cannon 01:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This goes back to the main problem with the article, it's PoV. Yes, I'm an ex-PB, and yes I have my own PoV. But this is an encyclopdia, and I think those who still worship in the assemblies are too subjective to create and/or edit something that will actually be informative to non-PBs. Whiskeyricard 18:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, stating facts is not POV. Terminology needs to be clarified, however.  If you look at some of the other religion-related articles (on Pentecostalism, Messianic Judaism, etc.) you'll find similar use of the distinctive terminology of the particular denominations/traditions. David Cannon 01:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Precisely my point. Thank you. Terminology does need to be clarified.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.226.235 (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Gospel hall?
Why does this page redirect here with no explanation? Furthermore, the Czech, Russian and Polish pages for Gospel Hall all talk only about the building and mention no denomination - yet their interwikis all link to the PB page with no given reason. What's happening? Could someone explain this to the uninitiated?Malick78 07:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the most fundamental groups (sometimes referred to as being part of the "Plymouth Brethren" or the "Exclusive Brethren" although we much prefer something along the lines of, say, "Christians") refers to their buildings as Gospel Halls. This is to eliminate confusion on the word "church", which technically does not mean a building, but the body of true Christians. There's no seperate page on our group (although I'm considering starting one...) so I imagine some dedicated linker decided this page was the closest they could get. As a side note on the use of "gospel hall"- it is unrelated to the Jehovah Witnesses "Kingdom Hall" (ours came first, anyway) and was chosen because, well, you go to a bingo hall to play bingo and a dance hall to dance. You go to a gambling hall to gamble and to a pool hall to play pool. So naturally a gospel hall is where you go to hear the gospel. 63.3.1.130 00:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, church is defined in the dictionary as the building where people worship God. Church is defined as the group of believers.  I tried to insert a link but couldn't, it's in the Meriam-Webster online dicionary. Whiskeyricard (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the reliability of that definition. I am more happier with the one given by Christian theologians. Is a mosque a church? Isn't the church, the body of Christ?--Another berean (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My feeling is that Christian theologians don't decide who or what is the body of Christ, and which word is used to describe them is, being a word, not a mater of theology but grammar. Don't have a huge amount of ownership about Church or church, just love the dialogue. Whiskeyricard (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It is true that the dictionaries define a "Church" as the place or building. But the bible, which is the first user of the word, do not use it in this meaning. This word is a translation of a Greek word meaning "An exiting group of people". Using it for buildings and places does not match the meaning of the Greek origin, but is a common mistake, which most of the dictionary fell in. M Dairy (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

National differences
I think a paragraph about the differences among Brethren groups in different countries would be in order. Reading the article, there is much with which I am familiar, but some things sound rather different from what I remember from the years I spent in the Brethren in the 1970s and 1980s in New Zealand. I left the Brethren 20 years ago. I have heard that some pretty dramatic changes have taken place in many assemblies since, but am not sufficiently up with the play to write about them. I'd be grateful if someone else did - and not just for New Zealand, but also for other countries. In particular, I would like to see some coverage of the Brethren in so-called third world countries - the only one I can see any significant mention of is Kerala, India. David Cannon 13:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Saints?
Do the PB still call themselves 'Saints' or have they given that up? They used to call themselves saints in the first half of the C20th. Malick78 09:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't remember any widespread use of the term "saints" when I was in the Brethren (1970s and 1980s). I heard it a bit - but it was used more to refer to Christians in general, not just to Brethren.  Whether the practice in the assemblies I attended was typical of the Brethren as a whole, I have no idea. David Cannon 11:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with David's recollection, and note that it is saints with a small "s". rossnixon 07:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My particular group does. As far as I know, they've used it for a long time, although I'm not sure how other, similar groups use the name. 63.3.1.130 00:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Open and exclusive distinction
I have a problem finding reliable sources outlining the differences between open and exclusive brethren - only 1320 hits on the search term '"open brethren" Plymouth exclusive -wikipedia"' - . Is this a distinction that is notable? Is this a distinction that only members of the church makes? If there are no notable sources to support the distinction, it's a distinction that shouldn't be made, not on Wikipedia where WP:RS is one of our most important policies. 83.233.154.50 09:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is certainly NOT a distinction made only by members. Open Brethren often have relations with other churches.  Exclusive Brethren never have.  I have a number of sources on the web.  I'll post them up here in due course.  Alternatively, you can follow some of the external links at the bottom of the article.  Generally speaking, in countries with a large Brethren following, the distinction is publicly known.  It might be more obscure in countries where there are a tiny minority. David Cannon 10:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I look very much forward to those sources, but I'd also like to point out right here that it is very dishonest of you to refer to my edits on the main page as vandalism, which you did in the edit summary - see WP:VANDAL. I provided several reliable sources categorizing the Plymouth brothers as a fundamental sect - to which extent it's true, I can not possible know as I have never dealt with the group or any member of it, but Wikipedia isn't about truth, it's about verifiability. You break a whole lot of Wikipedia rules/guidelines/policies when you remove a bunch of reliable sources and suggest your memory should take precedence. 83.233.154.50 11:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that your sources are necessarily reliable. Besides, if you are serious, please identify yourself, and discuss each proposed change on the talk page - here - before making sweeping changes in the article.  Besides, removing names from the list of notable members is unjustified.  Re the "fundamentalist" label : the great majority of Brethren I've met do hold beliefs closely similar to those of fundamentalism, but not all would define themselves as such.  F.F. Bruce was one who disclaimed the the label.  I'll post some sources up by mid-week.  But I want you to know that not many Wikipedians take kindly to anonymous editors deleting whole chunks of text without justification. David Cannon 13:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reinstated 83.*'s edits. They were prima facie sensible, made in good faith pursuance of WP:V and WP:NPOV, and should not have been reverted under a "vandalism" accusation, and most certainly not met with a block by an admin involved in the content dispute. And David, anon editors have every right to edit here, including deletion of text if they deem it poorly sourced. Fut.Perf. ☼ —Preceding comment was added at 18:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If an edit is sensible it has validity whoever makes it, anon or not. Okay David? There is too much on this page that is biased towards the PB anyway. As for the missionaries - they were entirely non-notable and I frequently was tempted to remove them myself. I'll back 83. all the way. Your memories, furthermore, are nothing compared to one reliable source.Malick78 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I put the most notable of the 5 killed (Jim Elliot) back. He was influential. rossnixon 02:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Says who? That's the point of an encyclopedia;) Malick78 10:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The death of these five was on national news at the time. Whiskeyricard (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Back to the topic: If no reliable sources are presented about the differences between open and closed brethren, I'm going to suggest all three articles are merged into this one. 83.233.154.50 09:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The split was back in the 1800s. Try a search engine for WP:RS. rossnixon 01:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking up Plymouth Brethren in the Encylopaedia Britannica, a clear distinction is made between Open and Exclusive. I strongly object to the Plymouth Brethren being described as a sect. There has, however, been a branch or two of the Exclusive Brethren which did become sect like and held and still may hold heretical views. A clear distinction of the Open Brethren is the local autonomy of each local gathering of believers. There is a strong biblical case for this. The problem of putting people out of local fellowship, hopefully for their eventual restoration, and how such decisions of an assembly effect other assemblies on their reception/non reception of those put out of fellowhip by another assembly led to the split between Exclusive and Open. Going back to the Open Brethren, which I have experience of, each assembly is governed by local overseers, who, like all of us, are fallible, and the spiritual maturity of those in fellowship is an important factor to ensure the local assembly sticks to what the Bible teaches and doesnt pick up heretical beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Another berean (talk • contribs) 09:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Definition in Meriam-Webster online for sect: 1: dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially one regarded as extreme or heretical b: a religious denomination  3 a: a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader


 * Under these definitions this is certainly a sect, as were the Lutherans, Methodists and any other denomination at one time. Whiskeyricard (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Having thought about things I partly withdraw what I said on 18 Oct 2007. It is a sect when an assembly follow blindly the teachings of Darby and subsequent writers such as Kelly, Stoney, Coates etc. who added what they deem further truths to Darbyism. The Exclusives and some Open Brethren do, indeed, follow Darby and subsequent exclusive teaching. The original founders of the Open Brethren stuck to the original principles of the early brethren and were too busy doing than ironing out deeper perceived truths. If I had to follow any man I would chose Muller or Groves who seemed to have had the sense not to think they were wise enough to propogate deeper "truths". See my comments below on what I perceive are some streams of the Open Brethren in the UK. Streams 1 and 2 I perceive are not sects unless I am convinced otherwise. Thank you for opening up this chat. I would also like to hear what others think and perhaps, we can modify the article, once a concensus has been established--Another berean (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Introductary paragraph
I do not agree with the statement "Members of the movement follow a code of conduct based strictly on Bible teaching." It is more a case of holding doctrine which is based strictly on Bible teaching. What are other peoples opinions? Another berean 21:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I will change this if it hasn't been done yet. rossnixon 01:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it open/closed/plymouth/assembly/Gospel Hall/Chapel/non-denominational etc etc...?
I hope I am not being too presumptuous, but i feel this whole discussion has got way off track. What many people seem to forget is that the 'brethren' or whatever you wish to call them, started out as a spontanious, non denominational movement trying to go by Gods word, and by His grace, for many, it has remained that way. I have fellowshp with many 'Gospel Halls' and, believe me, most of us do not see ourselves as 'open' or 'closed' or any of the other numerous labels that people try to place us under. I have the hardest time explaining to many of my Christian (and non- Christian) friends that I and those I meet with are simply a group of believers trying to go by the Bible. Thus, any attempt to create labels for us kind of defeats the object of what we do.

Constantly as I read the 'brethren'wikipedia article and this discussion board, I was bemused by the amount of generalisations and pigeonholes that were being knocked around. I thought I even read somewhere somebody saying that 'Gospel halls' were the domain of 'closed brethren'. What?! As aforementioned, I attend a gospel hall and I don't consider myself particularly 'closed' or particularly 'open' or particularly anything else. The point is that whatever label you create for a supposedly homogenous group of 'brethren' you will find masses of peope who say "hey, I dont think of myself like that at all". This is because one of the main aims of the 'brethren movement' was and is to go by the Bible, not by man-made definitions and traditions. The fairly well known Bible teacher, J.B. Nicolson (I hope he dosnt mind me quoting him)once told of a time when he got into conversation with another Christian, who promptly asked, which Church he was in. Nicolson replied "well brother, I only know of two churches, the true church and the false one!" The point He was making was that there is only one body of Christ and he was a part of that, not some denomination. All that Brother Nicolson and many thousands of other believers do is to simply try and meet according to scriptural guidlines- not make a name for themselves.

"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto you were not able to bear it, neither yet now are you able. For you are still carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are you not carnal, and walk like men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are you not carnal?" (1Corinthians 3:1-4)

God bless you all

Paul P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.51.62 (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't bless me. ;) Malick78 18:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didnt mean to cause you offense there. But I do want you to be blessed all the same. Paul P


 * What you said is technically and historically correct. These days, however, there are several "streams" in what is known as the "Brethren" movement.  In my younger years, I was enough involved with the Brethren to be aware of them. Each "stream" has its own views and emphases.  Yes, this article is full of generalizations, but most of them are broadly applicable, historically, to most groups that have been known as "Brethren."  Many are not so applicable today.  "Brethren" groups in my own city which have female elders, Pastors, display large crosses and speak in tongues would have been anathema to most Brethren in the past.  Again, I'm generalizing.   There are still many Brethren groups that don't accept any of the things I've just mentioned.  So you see, they are NOT a uniform group.  They DO generally, however, see themselves as having a shared history. David Cannon 22:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Only several streams?, I wish. Exclusives have split many times, Open twice, I think. History shows splits seemed to arise when big personalities fall out with each other leaving others having to decide which camp they belong in. I am in, what is termed, "happy fellowship" at an Open Brethren meeting. The movement is so split that I dont even know of the whereabouts of any Exclusive meeting, anywhere. From my experience, the different breeds of sheep definitely do not mix. From what I gather, some Exclusives wouldn't even let me in their hall! Another berean 23:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was referring to streams among the "Open" Brethren. Although I no longer attend a Brethren assembly, I try to keep in touch with what is going on.  Despite tensions that have arisen from time to time, there as not been a split, at least in New Zealand.  When I talk about "streams", I mean that some Open Brethren assemblies associate and cooperate more closely with certain assemblies than with others - e.g. a more "conservative" assembly is more likely to invite speakers from another conservative assembly than from a somewhat charismatic one and vice versa.  But they still tend to work together in the sharing of financial resources, very often support the same missionaries, etc.  When the Te Atatu Bible Chapel became the first Brethren assembly in New Zealand to embrace the charismatic movement in the 1970s, for example, most other Brethren did not approve, but agreed to differ.  There are now more charismatic assemblies than there used to be, but there are still a lot from the "old school" as well.  They agree to differ.  The same could be said about the role of women, the extent of cooperation and fellowship with non-"Brethren" churches, and the appointment of a Pastor.  The ability of "Brethren" assemblies to hold different opinions, but still work together, is one thing I deeply admire them for.  David Cannon 00:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Exclusives are a different kettle of fish. In New Zealand, there is only one stream of the exclusives - the so-called Taylorites, who are now led by Bruce Hales, of Australia.  They are almost a cult.  They have NO fellowship with other believers - not even other groups with Brethren heritage - shun radio, TV, the internet, higher education, etc., and require members to divorce spouses who leave them.  They are very reclusive, but have been in the media quite a lot in recent years.  Unfortunately, their antics - many of them unethical (such as the breaking up of families) and some of them on the edge of the law - have somewhat tarnished the "Brethren" name in the public eye, forcing many "Open" Brethren to explain the difference to everyone they meet.  David Cannon 00:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The difference between Open and Closed seems to be merely one surrounding the Breaking of Bread, so that's the only section that should use that classification, although mention could be made that Open Assemblies tend to favour more liberal views, comparatively.

As an example, I come from an assembly that is mostly a very closed, conservative assembly: head-coverings are expected of women in fellowship (though no one will chide or "correct" a visitor, save one who comes to join Fellowship with a letter of commendation or a visiting speaker's wife);  women do not speak or teach in services, even at the mid-week Bible study groups (they are instructed to pass a note to their husband/a man or ask someone after the meeting if they have a question), and yet we are quite open to collaborating with other denominations in various activities such as camps, Bible studies, extra-sabbatical worship services, etc. Trying to categorize P.B. assemblies as Open and Closed is mostly futile, since each assembly will look at each "belief" as a seperate entity and come to a decision on it that doesn't necessarily fall within their "denomination". As such, instead of classifying the assemblies, we should simply list the common beliefs by importance to P.B. teaching, and then explain how ANY individual assembly may differ on those beliefs.

Basically, the terms "Open" and "Exclusive/Closed" only belong in the section "Open and Exclusive Brethren", which I feel should me moved to and merged with the "Openness" sub-section further down. The Characteristics of the faith are more pertinent to the discussion at hand than the means of classifying different assemblies. It only appears to be at the top to allow the rest of the article to use "Open" and "Exclusive" as an arbitrary and inaccurate divisor. Eogan (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with David Cannon's assessment here. As Dr. Griffith Thomas once wryly observed, "The Brethren are remarkable people for rightly dividing the Word of Truth and wrongly dividing themselves!" To illustrate David's point, Eoghan, do you know the whereabouts or visited any of the Exclusive Brethren assemblies?--20.133.0.13 (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would disagree that the breaking of bread is the only difference between Open and Closed Assemblies. Shunning is an example of another.Whiskeyricard (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also their devotion to Darby and subsequent leaders. Feeling superior to other Christians (also Open Brethren can have this too, but to a lesser extent and can be more ecumenical), Their lack of compassion for others. Muller and Groves stand out like lights, compared to the dark murky world of some of the Exclusives. (The branches away from the Darby-Taylor-Hales line, I think are different.)

Separate roles of men and women
Ive expanded this section, hoping to find some consensus. Ive added the views of mainstream Open Brethren within the UK realising that it might not capture mainstream Open Brethren opinion in other parts of the world.--Another berean (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC) --Another berean (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there still a dispute over this section? If so, I am not sure what the dispute is about/--Another berean (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No active dispute. Will remove dispute tag/template thing. rossnixon 23:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable ???s
I believe the section "Notable members" is misleading in that not all listed were, in fact, notable for being members. While the idea of having a "Notorious" section is obviously biased, I suggest the "Notable Members" section be reserved for people who are notable BECAUSE of their involvement in the P.B. movement, and a "Notable Affiliates" (or some other equally neutral term) section for people who were in fellowship or connected in some other way to the brethren, but are notable for other reasons, whether those reasons be "positive" or "negative". For example, both John Bodkin Adams and Robert Anderson should not be in the "Notable Members" section, since they both noted for reasons that have nothing to do with the P.B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eogan (talk • contribs) 14:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. That's clearly biased POV. A member is a member. Malick78 (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Malick. Deciding that "Notable" should only pertain to those who are notable because of their work with the assembly is an arbitrary and not common definition of the word.Whiskeyricard (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, what the previous contributor says about Adams may be true, but it cannot be said of Anderson. To be sure, Anderson was famous in the "secular" world too, but I remember him being quoted as a theological source in brethren circles as late as the 1980s.  David Cannon (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Perseverance of the saints?
Do the PB believe in this or something similar? I once read somewhere that they did (or maybe used to). Thanks. Malick78 (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think most of them do. When I was with the Open Brethren, most (but not all) believed that.  I think most still do.  I don't know what the Exclusive Brethren believe about it. David Cannon (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The overseers in the very tight, open assembly I truck with, certainly do believe in the perseverence of the saints but it is not hammered home, in fact its rarely mentioned. Individuals in fellowship who fall off the rails are generally seen as either being in a backsliden condition or were never a saint in the 1st place, i.e. a wolf in sheeps clothing.--Another berean (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Should this be mentioned in the article then? Malick78 (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably, maybe in the characteristics section. Cessationist and dispensational I feel is just as important so I dont think the preservation of the saints characteristic needs to be overplayed. The Priesthood of All believers might be underplayed but also needs to be qualified. The criticism in http://www.batteredsheep.com/priesthood.html, mentioned in the Research Libraries as "Critical of the way "Brethren" assemblies are typically governed", certainly rings true to me.--Another berean (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Malick78's suggestion now added. Eternal security is the terminology usually used within the PB circles.--Another berean (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)