Talk:Exclusive Brethren: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:33, 29 November 2006

Latest revision as of 13:09, 28 March 2024

(134 intermediate revisions by 68 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{talkheader}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|

==Purported cult==

{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Low}}

This material is from the article [[List of purported cults]], which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 11:11, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Low|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Mid}}

}}

{{Archive box|[[/Archive 1]] [[/Archive 2]]}}

== Archive 2 ==

:''[[Exclusive Brethren]]

:''The Exclusive branch of the Plymouth Brethren are considered as a cult by most other Christians, and non-religious observers as well.

Ideally I would have archived all the previous talk when I split the page into the [[Exclusive Brethren]] and the [[Raven-Taylor-Hales Brethren]]. But I didn't, sorry about that. As there haven't been any significant changes on this talk page for a few months, I hope you won't mind that I've finally gotten around to splitting it. If you felt there was a raging debate on-going; you are welcome to continue it here, or revert my changes.

[[User:Jarich|Jarich]] ([[User talk:Jarich|talk]]) 09:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not visited this page in a while, but I do see it has changed from the last time I looked at it. I think someone suggested that the Taylorite description at the beginning needs to be moved to its own section as one of the offshoots of the exclusive brethren, and I agree. Let me first admit my own possible biases. My mother is a member of the exclusive brethren, and I have attended meetings in several states with her (we were a military family). I am not a member. Even so, they do not require me to sit in a special area as this article suggests (maybe they are talking about only the Taylorites, but it isn't clear). Furthermore, the Luddite stuff cannot be accurate because I distinctly remember playing a little handheld videogame with some kids before a meeting in the late 70's. We were sitting right in the meeting hall. I do know that voting is considered a "wordly activity," but many brethren do indeed vote regardless of many, maybe most, in the group considering this something you should not do. I love wikipedia and rely on it a lot for information, and this article is very disappointing because it calls into question whether I can trust this as a source. Garrison Keillor, a former member, has said he holds a special place in his heart for these people because he thinks they are really good people. I have no idea if he was open or exclusive, but I feel the same way about them. I would edit this myself, but perhaps I am not "neutral" enough either. Before coming back to this article I read the Quaker article because I saw an episode of Six Feet Under that depicted a Quaker meeting, and it reminded me of a Brethren meeting. That article seemed to have been written by someone sympathetic or admiring of the group, as I am of the Brethren. Would anyone like to comment on the appropriateness of me editing?? I am not a member, and have no plans to ask for fellowship.

----

H. Hoblit

Just a passing comment - this article is quite inaccessible to a non-specialist reader. It is filled with terms that are not defined or explained, including "communion", "lord's table" and so on. I suggest that it would benefit at the least from an introduction that explains what sort of religion this is a splinter of, when, how & why it splintered and so on. [[User:Lproven|Liam Proven]] ([[User talk:Lproven|talk]]) 13:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

::Dear H.

::Since you obviously come from a Non Taylorite branch of the exclusives you would it seems to me be ideal a person to edit the page in a non emotional fairly sympathetic way. The Taylorite material can be gathered together under the existing heading that it has already. Garrison K was obviously brought up in one of the Non Taylorite groups probably Grant/Stuart or Tunbridge Wells grouping. Somewhere there is an inverview with David Brady which may be of some help in answering that particular question. I have tried to make a summary at the bottom of this discussion page as a start but my ignorance of the non-Taylor groupings is quite comprehensive! Nevertheless you can use what you find helpful in it.

Ta

:Greg Morris

== Whisky ==

Dear Liam,You can go to any of the links of brethren mentioned on main page to understand this. I believe Wiki is not concerned with explaining the religeon. I would suggest "Plymouth Brethren Faqs" edited by Abigail Shwan. [[User:M Dairy|M Dairy]] ([[User talk:M Dairy|talk]]) 12:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

*''From 1960 JTJr consolidated power by surrounding himself with bright young men from the English-speaking world, and introduced an increasingly "hard line" of teaching. EB meetings ceased to be old men raking over their biblical knowledge, and took on a more gladiatorial atmosphere. Young people found this much more interesting. JTJr's teachings took people away from the comfort and laxity of post-WW2 society by banning membership of associations, banning eating with non-members, and eventually separating families into members and non-members who could not even speak to each other ever again. The JTJr era resulted in a huge increase in alcohol (especially Scotch whisky) consumption among EB. Twentieth century inventions that were encouraged rather than proscribed were: good cars, travel by jet aeroplanes and international telephones.''

== Unexplained removal of Referenced text ==

Some of this does not appear to be supported by cited sources. In particular, the assertion about a "huge increase" in whisky consumption caught my eye. I've searched for a reference, but haven't found it. Do any editors know where this material came from? Thanks, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 21:42, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

A large amount of referenced text (≈38%) was removed from this article on 20-21 January 2010 by anon IPs, ([[Special:Contributions/173.87.21.21|173.87.21.21]], [[Special:Contributions/86.176.222.47|86.176.222.47]], as their '' only '' Wikipedia edits). This included the ''entire'' " 'Cult' accusations" & "Political activities" sections. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exclusive_Brethren&action=historysubmit&diff=339222804&oldid=337489568 Diff.]<br>

The evidence for heavy whisky consumption in EB circles is very strong, but not very public. I have witnessed it, and have spoken to numerous others who have also. All such wish to remain anonymous because of the vengeful nature of brethrenism. I note that somebody writing as "Fisherman" on the peebs.net website in appalling English says:

It appears this was done without ''any'' Edit Summary ''or'' Talk Page discussion to explain it's deletion. ie. was it moved to the [[Raven-Taylor-Hales Brethren]] article? (it appears not, though here is same/similar material placed/moved there ''much'' earlier-February 2008)<br>

"Prior to the 40's and 50's-brethren were either teetotal or used alcohol sparingly-and then pretty much confined to beer and wine with dinner.'The use of ''Spirits'' or whisky was largely unknown in brethren circles-and any overindugence frowned upon.

When JTsr declared whisky a''creature of God'' and was seen using it himself, he set in motion a terrible legacy-the results which are still with the brethren today .Over the years there have been terrible and tragic accidents involving alcohal-and the brethren unfortionately have a well earned and deserved reputation for overindulgence-even to be seen carrying liquor bottles into the meeting room.

"While JTsr himself was not known for overindulgence - the groundwork for acceptance of strong drink was laid - culminating in the sad debacle of his son,JTjrs ''Aberdeen'' incident-which was a public exposure of the mans' weakness-he as not,as the brethren stoutly maintain a''pure man'' - there was no mystery about it - merely the ravages of alcohalism that had gone on for years and finally affected the mans mind, robbing him of any sense of judgement or propriety.

:"Today, the brethren are still reaping the terrible harvest. Little seems to be done even after another accident involving alcohal-you'd think it would be a wake up call, but the brethren seemingly overlook these things.The young men over the last 45 years have been encouraged to demonstrate their manhood by consuming whisky-and that has resulted in a terrible legacy-the tragedies continue-and no one raises a voice."

I am therefore [[WP:BOLD]]LY reverting these edits. Any objections please ''discuss'' on the talk page. '''--[[Special:Contributions/220.101.28.25|220.101.28.25]] ([[User talk:220.101.28.25|talk]]) 11:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)'''<br>

::I do not know the identity of Fisherman, but he is well informed. Perhaps he had the benefit of an EB education! -- anon.

== Controversies section ==

:::It is obvious that Fisherman was an EB at some stage. It is also obvious that he has some malicious agenda, as while appearing well informed, is statements are twisted, biased and very out of date.

It is ludicrous to have the controversies section at the beginning as this only has reference to a subset of E(xclusive)B(rethren)s. It should be moved to the end to allow a shape of the whole movement to be built up. That will allow the controversies thing to be seen more in context. I am afraid that there is little objective material and the quantative statements as to who have more or fewer adherents is rather weak. I think the figure for the Taylorites is about right as it there is photographic evidence of every family in every locality or group of meetings to back this up.

== Very unscholarly and defamatory... ==

[[User:Gregsy|Gregory Morris, Penymynydd, Flintshire]] ([[User talk:Gregsy|talk]]) 10:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

== POV Material ==

I would seriously recommend someone who is qualified to write on this subject rework the "Recent Developments" section. This section is written in an absurd and blatantly defamatory manner.

There seems to be a lot of POV material on here that sounds informal PR information, perhaps from a website. For example:

--[[User:Hirenny|Hirenny]] 04:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

:"Whilst the Brethren's teaching has been attacked by a vocal minority, the overwhelming evidence is that the group represents one of the most successful Christian groups with statistically insignificant incidences of family breakdowns."

Fixed now, thanks Hirenny.

Perhaps this should be fixed. [[User:Jaysonwhelpley|Jaysonwhelpley]] ([[User talk:Jaysonwhelpley|talk]]) 03:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

== NZ ==

==Mess==

I have changed the bit on NZ to say the possibly unaware National Party. The fact is, we don't know if National had any idea or not. They deny but there is insufficient evidence eitherway to say what National did or did not know. Perhaps rework it to say National denies they were aware if necessary but in any case, I think it needs to made clear we can't be sure.

: Hi, [[Don Brash]] now amits that he did know. [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10344635] [[User:Onco p53|Onco_p53]] 02:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

::You're right, I missed that. The original text which I modified said the unaware so I added the possibly. Personally I had expected they had been aware although I didn't expect them to admit so, so fast especially after Brash pulled out of the press conference yesterday

The article is a mess, and needs massive clean up. The Article should be "very brief" and should avoid great details.

== The official EB website ==

Couldn't agree more. Details, especially ones lacking references, only serve to muddy the waters in this difficult and potentially divisive topic. [[User:Dwandelt|Dwandelt]] ([[User talk:Dwandelt|talk]]) 15:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC) D. Wandelt

I've looked through the official Exclusive Brethren website [http://www.theexclusivebrethren.com], and I haven't been able to find any contact information. The ___domain was only registered 5 months ago, and it's administered by a law firm somewhere in Canada. This doesn't surprise me given who they are, but I was wondering if there's actually any evidence that this ''is'' their official website. Otherwise, perhaps we should point out that it's ''possibly'' a hoax, if only because there's no verification available that it's not. If the Exclusive Brethren really are so exclusive of the rest of society, they might not even know about it. [[User:Izogi|Izogi]] 03:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Despite the lengthy nature of this article it lacks many of the basic layman facts about the subject. I myself worked for the Closed Bretheren in Australia as a school teacher. I found this article almost misleading by omission. I am considering contributing but stuggling with POV vs facts I can confirm from direct observation. [[User:rhizopus|rhizopus]] 28/05/12 M. Nielsen <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 01:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I haven't heard from anyone about this, so I've just edited the article to indicate that it's unverified as official. If anyone has something to cite to indicate otherwise, by all means change it back. [[User:Izogi|Izogi]] 22:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. This article is microscopic. A simple definition and distinction from the Open Brethren is missing. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/205.250.197.66|205.250.197.66]] ([[User talk:205.250.197.66#top|talk]]) 20:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Very Unscholarly and Defamatory ==

==Neutrality==

Unfortunately much of this article is written in an unprofessional manner, with research poorly undertaken. It appears that this group have a lot of vociferous detractors who are very bigotted and unfair in their attempts to deride these people. Most who know them find them fair and godly persons who live clean, happy and fulfilling family lives. They seem to be able to care for their own and are not a drain on society. Even a cursory examination of the infamous "PeebsNet" site will demonstrate how intolerant some people can get about this group and (other religious Christian groups). <span style="font-size:70%">''The preceding unsigned comment was posted by '''[[User:85.10.200.202|85.10.200.202]]''' on November 2005.''</span>

How can we have a neutral article if exclusive Brethren don't let their members use the net? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.69.47.65|24.69.47.65]] ([[User talk:24.69.47.65|talk]]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP -->

:I don't really know anything about this church/cult/whatever, but the above commenter probably has some point about the article being unscholarly. It sounds like people biased against the group have written this article, rather than neutral observers. The group has been in the news in Australia quite a lot recently so this article is getting some attention I guess. It took me a while to realise the group is connected to the [[Plymouth Brethren]] which most Aussies probably would have heard of. So I added a note on this in the intro. Beyond this though, the article still sounds suspiciously like it probably has several sentences that are written with a non-neutral point of view. Anyone who knows something about the topic, please check it over to help it conform to the [[WP:NPOV|NPOV policy]]. [[User:Donama|Donama]] 01:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

:Neutrality is gained by "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." (See [[WP:NPOV]]). Neutrality does not depend on members of the religion editing, or contributing to, the article. Please note that new comments go at the bottom of th page, not the top. [[User:BlackCab|BlackCab]] ([[User talk:BlackCab|talk]]) 01:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I am adding material from a French language research publication which should help NPOV. Feel free to provide a more accurate translation.[[User:Veritan|Veritan]] ([[User talk:Veritan|talk]]) 14:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is under serious review at Wikipeebia, hope to have a full definition done soon. Please watch this space. Most of the revieed article will be written by leavers of the EB cult from 1950 to date. This will be the most unbiased review written on the EB to date. ([[User:WikiPeebia|WikiPeebia]] ([[User talk:WikiPeebia|talk]]) 15:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC))

The edit by BeadyH on 24 March shows just how disgusting some of these unbalanced people have become in their attacks on defenceless people dead for 36 years and unable to defend themselves.

:Neutrality doesn't mean balancing "pro" and "anti" contributions. For WP it means getting reliable sources for what is written and should ''not'' include personal experiences (see [[WP:SOURCE]]). For much of exclusive brethren history these are not hard to come by: Neatby, Noel, Ironside etc. The problem with more recent happenings is that it's mostly newspaper sources and these are rarely objective, thorough or reliable. Even the attempt by Wilson at a more objective appraisal has its limits. One should remember that the Raven/Taylor/Hales faction only accounts for about half the exclusive brethren: there is a large group in Germany which seems to be almost as big but it's hard to get a lot of information about them (www.bruederbewegung.de is a good source). I'll be interested to see what wikipeebia.com produces, but peebs.net already has a lot of useful material (though it's down for maintenance at this moment). [[User:Chris55|Chris55]] ([[User talk:Chris55|talk]]) 16:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to insure neutrality. The gradual Wikipedia process of accretion of detail should right this article if its "lists" are, as it seems to this eye, merely the result of a necessarily limited perspective. Employing "leavers" to document the shifting philosophies of splinter groups can serve only an ancillary historical purpose. One might wish that [[User:Chris55|Chris55]] would perform a modest edit here, along the lines of his comment above. [[User:Klasovsky|Klasovsky]] ([[User talk:Klasovsky|talk]]) 20:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed "erect vessel" from the Aberdeen incident section. Academically inappropriate and plainly little more than insult. - Unregistered User

:Well I have in the meanwhile obtained a copy of Bachelard's book, which significantly modifies my complaint above about reporting, and made a number of changes to this and the [[Raven-Taylor-Hales Brethren]] page, including changing it to its current title. I'm sure many people will continue with the old title but I hope both reflect a more informed view of the subject. Is it time to remove the POV tag? [[User:Chris55|Chris55]] ([[User talk:Chris55|talk]]) 14:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

== MovedComplaints from articledismissed ==

The references to Wilton Park School should be deleted from this article. Government agencies found that anonymous allegations made against the school were baseless and dismissed all complaints. See www.thirdsector.co.uk/Governance/article/1175581/county-council-police-dismiss-complaints-against-brethren-school/ <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gaffer58|Gaffer58]] ([[User talk:Gaffer58|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gaffer58|contribs]]) 13:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

[[User:58.166.68.248]] wrote: "It should be clearly noted that this article has been written by some of the most ardent haters of the brethren and reports are presented in a way that will arouse unjustified resentment against them."

:Dismissed does not mean it never happened. I've restored it and will add that it was dismissed.--<span style="text-shadow:#FFD700 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:Auric|<span style="color:#FC3700;">'''Auric'''</span>]] [[User talk:Auric|<span style="color:#0C0F00;">''talk''</span>]]</span> 15:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

== ThoseGood who write hereEdits ==

The several small edits by 124.191.28.12 seem particularly good. [[User:MaynardClark|MaynardClark]] ([[User talk:MaynardClark|talk]]) 23:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

== Reorganized - part one ==

It is true that parts of this article have been written by those who dislike the EBs. Now who would those people be? The majority of the world knows nothing of the EB and cares less. So those who write must be those who actually have knowledge and experience of EBism, ie those who have been members. So the article is actually written by those who KNOW what they are talking about! How dreadful!

I have substantially reorganized the [[Plymouth Brethren]], [[Exclusive Brethren]], and [[Open Brethren]] articles. A great deal of information in the Plymouth Brethren article that pertains to only one of the two major streams of Brethrenism has been moved to the relevant articles and merged with existing information. Undoubtedly, all three are still messy, and require cleanup. It's now 2.30 AM where I am, so I'm going to bed, but will get around to it within the next 24 hours. Please bear with me, everybody! [[User:Davidcannon|David Cannon]] ([[User talk:Davidcannon|talk]]) 14:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There do seem to be some apologists for EBism who break EB rules and try to sanitize this article - but double standards are normal for such people. Why somebody even deleted my remark that the "man of god" raped the "bride of christ"! [[User:BeadyH|BeadyH]] 02:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

== Reorganization — progress report ==

Terrible! How unfair for EB apologists to try to set the record straight!

I have substantially rearranged the [[Plymouth Brethren]], [[Open Brethren]], and [[Exclusive Brethren]] articles. The first two have been significantly cleaned up, though there are still areas that need improvement (especially with citations — please be patient with me on this). The Exclusive Brethren article still needs to be cleaned up, and part of it needs to be spun off into the separate [[Plymouth Brethren Christian Church]] article.

It is quite OK for differing views to be presented here. It is to be encouraged. What is WRONG is the EB hierarchy publically condemning the internet in their meetings and then slinking around behind the backs of the faithful and creating and editing web sites. This is a DOUBLE STANDARD. But then most religions practise double standards ... [[User:BeadyH|BeadyH]] 10:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The list of prominent "Open" Brethren needs to be edited; many need to be moved to the Exclusive list. I will get around to this in a few days — it will take a little while to determine just what list each individual belongs in. [[User:Davidcannon|David Cannon]] ([[User talk:Davidcannon|talk]]) 11:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

== Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the EBs ==

== Renton subset ==

In his addresss to the Westminister Fellowship of Ministers on 19 June [[1963]], entitled '''Consider Your Ways' The Outline of a New Strategy'', Dr. [[Martyn Lloyd-Jones]] included the following:

:"Another reason, upon which I am not going to dilate, concerns what has been happening among the Exclusive Brethren. I am myself very deeply impressed by this, as I know many of you are. I feel that it creates a new situation for us. Here are numbers of people who have come out of the bondage in which they have been held for so long, and they are scattered all over the country, not quite knowing what to do or where to turn. They are a body of people who in many respects have unique qualities, and I feel that it is a challenge to us to determine our relationship to them."<ref>p.166 in ''Knowing the Times'', Edinburgh: Banner of Truth (1989) ISBN 0851515568.</ref>

I feel that this article is correct and very in depth, I only feel some lacking in the mention of the Renton subset of the EB. I understand this may be due to lack of understanding of the group due to their secretive nature. Being an Ex Member of this group who is now an aethiest with a thirst for knowledge I feel that I could contribute to some understanding of this group. They have never treated me with human respect and this was a large contributor to me being withdrawn from. The belief that a demon had possessed my person by the brethren caused them to fear me before my exclusion, i would love to communicate more on this matter. I will Fill more information as I find possible

It is clear from these remarks that MLJ regarded these former EBs as fellow-believers, and that he wanted to help them.

[[User:David Haslam|DFH]] 21:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous Ex Member. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/62.254.102.130|62.254.102.130]] ([[User talk:62.254.102.130|talk]]) 16:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

<references />

: I have moved this piece to the "Where are they now" Section as it demonstrates that not all who left were in fact seen as damaged, warped or in fact adversely affected but were seen as Christians with something valuable to contribute to the Christian community at large.

[[User:81.137.208.199|81.137.208.199]] 22:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

==Umm POV issues?==

Isn't a bit POV to start it by flat out saying they "are a secretive Christian cult?" They might be a cult, what little I know makes it sound plausible. However [[Aum Shinrikyo]] and the [[Branch Davidian]]s are just called "a religious group" in the first sentence of their articles. The word "cult" apparently doesn't even appear in the first paragraph of either article. The article on the [[Church Universal and Triumphant]] doesn't even mention a leading member [http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/cut.html#controvers stockpiling weapons] and dismisses any cult allegations way down the line and in quick fashion. So considering all that I don't see why this group gets called a cult right off the bat. Are they like killing and raping people en masse? And if it is so clearcut that they're a cult shouldn't they be in [[:Category:Cults]]?--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 10:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

:The opening still mentions cult allegations, but I took the word out of the first sentence.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 02:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just modified 2 external links on [[Exclusive Brethren]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=802431378 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

== "Outs since 1970" ==

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114103730/http://peebs.net/ to http://peebs.net/

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130624215305/http://www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/dbreth.htm to http://www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/dbreth.htm

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

I have tried to summarise the general trends and events amongst those who departed from James Taylor Jnr in 1970. I am aware that in some cases there is some simplification but I have generally had regard to what BWBurton says in his very biased and quite unacceptably unobjective additions to "Recovery and Maintenance of the Truth" ie "A further review of the Recovery to the Truth and its Maintenance (1827-1997), and to generally circulated material which is on public record at the John Rylands Library in Manchester. Greg

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

I should add that the Opening Paragraph is a bit of a mess. We should consult Dr Shuff's excellent new book and define Exclusive Brethren in its widest sense as a "connexional" group of Brethren as opposed to "independent" ie OB a division that has been in existence for over 150 years in practice. Material on the Taylorite branch could then be moved to the section which deals exclusively with that branch of the Raven Taylor Movement. It is wholly unfair that EBs generally are tarred with this brush - some of the more sensational material in that first paragraph does not take account of the breadth of the Exclusive Brethren Movement outside the Symington Hales group. The EBs are indeed very diverse in doctrine and in practice but have nevertheless some striking common ground which should be summarised in the opening paragraph.

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 03:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

== Exclusive Brethren: Towards a more accurate Nomenclature ==

== External links modified ==

Just some thoughts rather fragmented: would be glad of some feedback

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Definitions of Exclusive Brethren

I have just modified 4 external links on [[Exclusive Brethren]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/812918261|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

‘’’PB’’’ Plymouth Brethren the name given for the whole Brethren movement. This divides into 2 groups. Exclusive Brethren and Open Brethren

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101116205245/http://www.reachouttrust.org/articleView.php?id=288 to http://www.reachouttrust.org/articleView.php?id=288

*Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160518150855/http://brethrenonline.org/faqs/Brethren.htm to http://www.brethrenonline.org/faqs/Brethren.htm

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101122153735/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/chris.thorns/resources/EDX_anthology/EDXL_1950-present_poets.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/chris.thorns/resources/EDX_anthology/EDXL_1950-present_poets.htm

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120312073246/http://www.reachouttrust.org/articleView.php?id=460 to http://www.reachouttrust.org/articleView.php?id=460

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

‘’’EB’’’ Exclusive Brethren or perhaps more accurately “Connexional” brethren as opposed to Open or Independent Brethren. They are also commonly known as “Darbyites” after [[John Nelson Darby]] one of the early Brethren leaders who brought about the rift with Open Brethren. EB believe that there is a necessary unity of the assembly which has to be practically expressed. Matters of fellowship and church discipline are not merely a matter of local responsibility but must be taken account of universally: actions in one meeting are universally to be accepted in the others. There are common threads throughout all groups, eg the practice of household baptism and the centrality of the Lord’s Supper in weekly worship [NB Need Truth are connexional even though they are associated with Open Brethren”] There are two main branches of EB.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

‘’’Raven/Taylor’’’ Brethren sometimes known as the “London” Party after their HQ at Park Street. These brethren accepted the ministry of Mr Raven particularly in respect of his teaching on Eternal Life and also the ministry of Mr James Taylor Senior with respect to the Eternal Sonship question and the ministry of addressing the Holy Spirit in worship. They are a diverse group today. Some of this group have modified or qualified their acceptance of or rejected the teachings of Mr Taylor Senior but generally accept that of Mr Raven perhaps with reservations in some cases. [Glanton meetings initially accepted, albeit with reservations, the teachings of Mr Raven but should not now be grouped with Raven/Taylor]

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 17:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

‘’’Kelly/Lowe/Glanton’’’ This group represents over 50 years of reunions amongst non-Taylor/Raven Brethren culminating in 1974. Whereas Reuniting Brethren would have been an apposite label, recent divisions have split the movement. This group is the largest single group by far of Brethren on the European mainland. In the UK they have absorbed many of the Tunbridge Wells meetings and sundry other smaller groups. Reunion with ex-Taylor meetings has been hampered by mutual suspicion and disagreement on the doctrines of the Eternal Son, Eternal Life and the matter of addressing the Holy Spirit in worship even though there is often a great measure of agreement in theory, in practice there is often not the liberty to differ.

== Removal of uncited remarks ==

They have the closest claim to be called "Darbyite as they do not accept the concept of "progressive ministry" by which the practices and teachings of brethren evolve according to "current light" or "current ministry". Neither do they accept the concept of "authoritative ministry" as being divinely sanctioned and binding on those in fellowship.

After reverting a recent edit, I noticed that there was some editorialising and uncited references to scandalous behaviour. I removed these. Please let me know if you wish to revert these and if you have citations. Thanks

‘’’Raven/Taylor Divisions’’’ Generally speaking at present, the Raven/Taylor Group divide into 3 groups:

[[User:AussieWikiDan|AussieWikiDan]] ([[User talk:AussieWikiDan|talk]]) 06:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Taylor/Symington/Hales often confusingly called “Exclusive Brethren” Those who remained in fellowship with James Taylor Junior after 1970 have remained broadly undivided although they along with all other exclusives but perhaps to a lesser degree suffer from defections to other brethren, other denominations etc. They practice separation from the world in its strictest form among brethren generally and have generally ostracised those who have departed from them though they are quite happy to engage in business activities with those not under discipline. They have been the subject of quite widespread controversy and unwelcome publicity. As regards to doctrine, while not openly eschewing the ministry of “Men of the Recovery”, their public ecclesiological stance is at odds with the published writings of Darby/Raven/Taylor Senior.

== Closed vs. exclusive Brethren ==

Pre-Aberdeen Outs. These meetings left the Raven/Taylor group during the ministry of Mr Taylor Senior or Taylor Junior but chiefly as a reaction to the ministry of the latter. There has been some reuniting with some of the Post Aberdeen outs but the number of meetings is very small and many have joined other brethren and other denominations.

In this article, the "closed brethren" and the "exclusive brethren" are treated together and sometimes mixed up.

Post Aberdeen Outs. These meetings separated from James Taylor Jnr in 1970 in the immediate aftermath of meetings at Aberdeen. They have divided several times since then and are very fragmented. Some meetings have become ''de facto'' independents others have joined with Pre Aberdeen Outs. Some retain the concept of "authoritative ministry" and they have varying degrees of freedom to attend services in other meetings and churches. They have a wide variety of doctrinal viewpoints and practices having reacted to a greater or lesser degree to Taylorite teachings. The Kingston Bible Trust under the auspices of the “Croydon” group produces a selection of ministry in the Darby/Raven/Taylor category.

It might make more sense to have one article about the "Closed Brethren" and one about the "Plymouth Brethren Christian Church".

From my own experience, I think the differences between the "Closed Brethren" and the "Exclusive Brethren" are greater than the differences between the "Closed Brethren" and the "Open Brethren". [[Special:Contributions/79.140.182.57|79.140.182.57]] ([[User talk:79.140.182.57|talk]]) 13:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

:The US [[Library of Congress]] classifies various Brethren groupings by means of Roman numerals. See [[Talk:Plymouth Brethren#US Library of Congress classification of Brethren]]. [[User:David Haslam|DFH]] 21:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

==Latest Edit==

Well I have bitten the bullet and begun to edit the Main Introduction to Exclusive Brethren. All material on the largest group identified with James Taylor Junior and his successors I have placed under their own heading. I have not really changed the substance of what is said about Taylor Brethren but have edited it slightly to weed out repetitions. I have for clarity's sake, moved the Kelly Lowe Glanton heading up into the main introductory section as it forms a major grouping in opposition to the Raven Taylor Group.

I have also added under the Kelly Glanton Lowe section a link to two papers which give some analysis of the recent problems and divisions of that group, and those who identify with the Raven/Taylor will observe that the problems are in fact endemic to Exclusive Brethrenism and mirror to some extent the travails of that system. The full spectrum of Exclusivism can now be observed in both halves of the EB whole. The two papers do infact suggest some thoughtful solutions to the dilemmas of Exclusivism and contain a good amount of historical resumé.

Greg Morris

St Deiniol's Library

Hawarden

Flintshire

CH5 3DF

==Kelly Lowe Glanton Emendations==

Would it be possible to have a more objective viewpoint on why divisions are happening among Kelly Lowe Glanton Meetings? The fact that there is disagreement on certain doctrinal issues is not at issue but it would be more helpful to establish the facts as to what the disagreements are rather than who is right! That belongs in another sphere not in an encyclopaedic one. "Liberal" is a rather relative term in this case but undeniably there is a liberal tendency. New Age perhaps needs a sentence to explain to those of us who are not au fait with it: do they accept Homeopathy? I have no idea but would like to know what the essential bone of contention is or was.

I am not very much au fait with the Dutch Teachers issue but presume it refers to the Geneva Conference and the procedings that came out from it. Perhaps it would be useful to have a link with that paper itself for reference's sake. If the main leaders of that party were named in a non-emotive way that would be very helpful.

As to infiltration of the Kelly Lowe Glanton group by an Oxted Meeting, I am not aware of the facts but generally feel that words like infiltration indicate a point of view rather than a fact. Perhaps the person making emendments would care to be more specific and make it clear what the actual issue at stake was. Was it the reunion of two local ie an Oxted and a KLG meetings that has caused subsequent difficulties? That would be a much less partisan and more factual approach which no one could disagree with.

I have made a few small emendation which I hope will lower the temperature slightly and removed "proper" as a preface to the Eternal Sonship of Christ since that is unnecessary to those like myself who believe it, and removes uncharitable imputations on those who either do not believe it in the same way as the writer, or believe it but would not use language which, like "Trinity", is quite correct but not techincally scriptural since it involves acceptance of subsequent credal accretions. At the same time I thought it as well to draw the readers' attention to the fact that none of the parties disagree as to the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Disagreements between Oxted and KLG parties are within well-defined and well understood limits. If I remember rightly, at Haywards Heath when Oxted & KLG met on the matter of proposed unity in the 1980s there was no fundamental doctrinal difference. It would be interesting to know whether any notes were made of the occasion so that the actual obstacles to union could be identified. I have surmised at them in the main article but would be glad of some note as to KLG opinion on the matter and whether it was universally held.

Kind Regards

Greg Morris

St Deiniol's Library

Hawarden

Flintshire

CH5 3DF

== Sub-sections ==

I have just altered the section levels to improve the article structure. However, I feel less than satisfied about the ___location of the '''Politics''' sub-section. Should this be moved out-with the main section on Taylorites ? [[User:David Haslam|DFH]] 21:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

::I think that the politics issue is a valid one because of the Taylorite interest in Australian/New Zealand elections etc at the moment. But there is a problem since the Taylorites are at odds with the received wisdom amongst PBs which is basically Pietism if not Quietism! This other view needs to be given as it is the mainstream view from which the Taylorites very interestingly are diverting

[[User:81.137.208.199|81.137.208.199]] 22:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

== Cleanup ==

I have just tagged the main article as requiring some cleanup. Reading through the discussion page, it is apparent that some of the users are not that well experienced in composing good encyclopedia articles, and this article certainly suffers because of this weakness. The difficulty is in all likelihood compounded by the fact that those with the good inside knowledge of the various EB groups are probably not so well placed for writing about them disinterestedly and so keeping to a NPOV. [[User:David Haslam|DFH]] 21:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

:Well you have made the first section much more readable. I think that is needs a lot of sifting. Part of the problem is that in many minds Exclusive Brethren = Taylor Brethren so the strands have all got to be sorted out. The politics section is a case in point. It really needs deleting and starting again. and it is a bit of a battlefield by the look of it. The converse problem is that there is a surprising amount of bitterness between Kelly / Raven Sections from which the two main sections all spring and some discipline is required to avoid the temptation to score points and to give an historical resume which is factually useful. [[User:Gregsy|Gregory Morris, St Deiniol&#39;s Library, Hawarden]] 22:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

::Any improvements I attempt will largely be to do with general readibility and structure/formatting. My own detailed knowledge about EBs is now somewhat dated&mdash;see the most recent section of my talk page. [[User:David Haslam|DFH]] 14:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

=="Out" Taylor Brethren since 1970==

this section is not clear, it begins with "they divided into 2 main groups" and ends with 5 points... [[User:Sucrine|Sucrine]] <small>( [[User_talk:Sucrine|&gt;&lt;&gt; talk]])</small> 21:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks. I have just numbered the first two groups then listed subsequent splits underneath without numbering them

::[[User:Gregsy|Gregory Morris, St Deiniol&#39;s Library, Hawarden]] 22:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

== Endless Reverts ==

Whoever it is who keeps posting the assertion that "The Exclusive Brethren are a sinister, secretive and manipulative sect." may be right in part but s/he does not seem to understand that the term Exclusive Brethren is much wider than the Taylorite Brethren and embraces a wide spectrum of Christians. That is what the summary is trying to say in order to balance a widely held but erroneous view that EBs = followers of Jim Taylor, B Hales etc. The majority of EB meetings do not fall into this category.

I am not an apologist for the Taylorites but at least if you feel that what you are saying is factual, insert it under the correct heading. It is very easy to post something that is emotive or sensational but much more satisfying to stick to the facts.

Toodlepip

[[User:Gregsy|Gregory Morris, St Deiniol&#39;s Library, Hawarden]] 15:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

:I've put a message on what appears to me to be the main user's talk page. I'm not sure if it's a dynamic IP (the fact the user has made a number of changes to this article over several days suggests it may not be). The user has made constructive edits recently too, so I'm sure this is a misunderstanding about what constitutes POV rather than vandalism. [[User:Chovain|Chovain]] 00:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

== What photograph? ==

In the New Zealand Section-2.3.3-the following line appears in the fourth paragraph:'' Anti-feminist mens' rights and anti-gay campaigner Chuck Bird has claimed responsibility for the offending photograph''. I can't figure out from any of the preceeding paragraphs what photograph is being referred to. [[User:R Duggan|R Duggan]] 22:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:That comment came in with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exclusive_Brethren&diff=77459841&oldid=77459199 this edit]. The photo they are referring to is explained in [http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3800052a6160,00.html this ref], but not described in the article. [http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3807602a10,00.html This article] seems to refute the suggestion that he was responsible for the photo - rather that he got the photo from 'a contact', and passing them onto a newspaper. I say we take out the sentence altogether unless anyone can piece together the news stories. [[User:Chovain|Chovain]] 05:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)